Educate me on Fracking

[rufuspaul]

The Republican-controlled legislature in my state just voted to allow fracking here under the guise that it will create jobs. I am blissfully ignorant as to what dangers this kind of thing poses. Can ISH clue me in?

[Godzuki]

just hope your drinking water doesn't become flammable like it has in other fracked up areas. its definitely not a perfected science but $$$ and need for resources over-weigh's peoples safety these days.

basically they stick pipes or hoses into the ground and shoot chemicals into the earth to break shale rock which releases natural gas. which can get into the water systems, and has.

[rufuspaul]

Isn't there an over-abundance of natural gas in this country already? I get the feeling that industry lobbyists got to the legislature and hoodwinked the deal before any real research was done.

[QUIZZLE]

The Republican-controlled legislature in my state just voted to allow fracking here under the guise that it will create jobs. I am blissfully ignorant as to what dangers this kind of thing poses. Can ISH clue me in?

Marcellus Shale is getting away with contaminating thousands of people waters with nearly 200 chemicals. The fracking is a method to get oil by pumping water mixed with these harmful chemicals which helps retrieve the oil.

Pretty messed up situation.

There's a recent documentary called Gasland that talks about it. Very interesting stuff.

[rufuspaul]

There's a recent documentary called Gasland that talks about it. Very interesting stuff.


I need to watch that. Now if only there was a thread that could direct me to some documentaries. :D

[KevinNYC]

The Republican-controlled legislature in my state just voted to allow fracking here under the guise that it will create jobs. I am blissfully ignorant as to what dangers this kind of thing poses. Can ISH clue me in?
Yeah the break the shale with super higher powered water and chemicals.

There is a big concern about those chemicals leaking into groundwater.


They have started to link the use of fracking to increases seismic activity in areas where it has gone on.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-20/fracking-linked-earthquakes-spurring-state-regulations.html

Here's an interview with the director of the movie from gasland.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html

and then there's this.
http://www.joblo.com/video/player.php?video=tapwater-gasland

[rufuspaul]

^^ Good info. Thanks.

[QUIZZLE]

I need to watch that. Now if only there was a thread that could direct me to some documentaries. :D

haha :cheers:

[DeuceWallaces]

It's not as much using the natural resource, as it is the total destruction of surrounding resources.

[Lebowsky]

In b4 hawker.

[rufuspaul]

In b4 hawker.


Yeah I'm interested in his opinion on this.

[falc39]

The Republican-controlled legislature in my state just voted to allow fracking here under the guise that it will create jobs. I am blissfully ignorant as to what dangers this kind of thing poses. Can ISH clue me in?

Judging by the replies already in the thread, you may want to look elsewhere...

So many gasland references lol. Gasland is not a good place to start at all. The engineering circles see that film as a joke/entertainment and it's been debunked already. I would post more and link more but I'm at work and on my phone...

[rufuspaul]

Apparently the state senate is creating a commission that is supposed to assuage any environmental concerns. The newspaper article on it included this little tidbit:
[Quote]
Seven of the commission

[Nanners]

Yeah I'm interested in his opinion on this.

his opinion is fvck everyone else. he gets paid big money because his industry can externalize their health costs on to their fellow americans. hope that pimply little fa66ot sleeps well at night.

[Abd El-Krim]

So many gasland references lol. Gasland is not a good place to start at all. The engineering circles see that film as a joke/entertainment and it's been debunked already. I would post more and link more but I'm at work and on my phone...

It's extremely one sided - but the one side it shows stays with you. Rednecks who were out for a quick buck who can now light the water from their facets on fire, or the one dude with a 50,000 water plant in his shed because all the groundwater around him is for shit.

Commentary was shit, but it's worth watching just to see some of the affected people.

[Godzuki]

Judging by the replies already in the thread, you may want to look elsewhere...

So many gasland references lol. Gasland is not a good place to start at all. The engineering circles see that film as a joke/entertainment and it's been debunked already. I would post more and link more but I'm at work and on my phone...

i hope they have a good argument since any debunks don't seem to be very widespread, where as you'd think it would be front and center of any Gasland mention if it were that concrete.

its just always tough to take Republican or big business arguments very seriously since they clearly have $$$ agendas, and their history of denying global warming, pushing religious agendas, etc. doesn't give too much confidence in their opposition views based on science/reality. if its an engineers consensus across the country, then i'd love to see it...

[DeuceWallaces]

Judging by the replies already in the thread, you may want to look elsewhere...

So many gasland references lol. Gasland is not a good place to start at all. The engineering circles see that film as a joke/entertainment and it's been debunked already. I would post more and link more but I'm at work and on my phone...

What's a joke is an engineer's opinion on environmental quality and benchmarks.

[falc39]

What's a joke is an engineer's opinion on environmental quality and benchmarks.

Your the one with the "opinion" since there is no convincing/concrete evidence that fracking is responsible.

Some of you who keep complaining about the politicization are just as politicized in your own arguments.

[Godzuki]

Your the one with the "opinion" since there is no convincing/concrete evidence that fracking is responsible.

Some of you who keep complaining about the politicization are just as politicized in your own arguments.


but theres not as much of an agenda against it than health/safety concerns from those thinking its unsafe. where as big business and Republicans all have probably millions/billions riding on assuring the public its safe...

and if oil drilling is anything to go by, any claims of it being so proven safe are highly unlikely compared to what they say or have said.

[dunksby]

I thought this thread was about Battlestar Galactica.

[KevinNYC]

Article (http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking)


For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks.
The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.


Study: Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling)

[rufuspaul]

The article in the paper today said something to the effect that Republican senators overcame Democratic objections. I think the correct phrasing should be "After being bought out by petroleum and mining lobbyists, Republican senators didn't give a shit about any Democratic objections to fracking."

[falc39]

Article (http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking)




Study: Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling)

Hardly convincing and so far has been the exception, not the norm. It leaves a lot to be desired statistically and the study didn't even have before data.

[Dolphin]

Hardly convincing and so far has been the exception, not the norm. It leaves a lot to be desired statistically and the study didn't even have before data.

The one problem I have with industry experts and politicians ignoring these studies (in more areas than just fracking) is that while maybe the studies aren't conclusive enough, they still raise an educated question of whether these activities do put people at risk.

And then I wonder what happens years or decades from now if we do find some of these activities did result in making people sick or killing people prematurely? Do the people in support of these activities simply get let off the hook by saying "Well shucks, ya people warned us of this, but what did you want us to do, go by unfinished data rather than make money and 'create jobs'?"

I don't know practically anything about fracking specifically, so I'm not gonna take a side. However, here's one thing I would hope you agree with: If years later we find these sorts of activities led to people becoming disabled or led to deaths, the people responsible should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. No "We didn't know better." People did raise serious concerns. That shouldn't be used as an excuse, although knowing a lot more about law than mining/drilling, they probably would get away with it. lol

But in all honesty, if these conclusive studies ever did come about, billions of dollars would be spent to hide them or to discredit them so yadda yadda yadda.....lol

[shlver]

Article (http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking)




Study: Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling)
Faucet flames have been recorded in newspapers far back as the 1950's where man made natural gas development were not even a factor.
http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/extinquishing-the-flaming-faucet-exploding-the-myth/2845/

[DeuceWallaces]

Hardly convincing and so far has been the exception, not the norm. It leaves a lot to be desired statistically and the study didn't even have before data.

Exactly what part of that paper is to be desired statistically? They had statistical significance at an extremely low p value across 61 sites.

And I'm sure it will become more of a norm. The publicity surrounding, and activity of fracking is somewhat recent. Do you understand how the scientific process works? It takes 6-12 months to get a proposal through, another 6 months or so to get a grad student on the project and possibly a few more months to plan it and get site access. This is followed by 2 years of data collection, 6 months of analysis, writing, and getting it out of a committee, 4-6 more months of review, and then a couple more until it's published after acceptance. There's a 3-4 year lag time between a topic becoming relevant and peer reviewed results hitting the press.

EDIT:

Lol I just noticed that paper came from Robert Jackson's lab at Duke; one of the most distinguished hydrologists and physiologists in the world.

[DeuceWallaces]

Here is their PNAS reviewed response to some knuckle-heads like Falc.

[QUOTE]Reply to Saba and Orzechowski and Schon: Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
+ Author Affiliations

aCenter on Global Change and
bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; and
cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Two letters by Saba and Orzechowski (1) and Schon (2) address our research linking elevated methane and ethane concentrations to shale-gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing (3). We respond briefly here and point readers to a supplementary document for more details (4).

An assertion, and misconception, in both letters is that, because we found small amounts of mixed biogenic and thermogenic gas in 85% of groundwater samples, the thermogenic gas we observed near shale-gas wells occurred naturally. What we showed instead (figures 3 and 4 of ref. 3) was that drinking water was more likely to have high methane and ethane concentrations when homeowners lived within 1 km of a gas well. We also showed that the isotopic signatures for both δ13C and δ2H of methane found in high concentrations in private water wells closely matched the signatures of methane coming out of gas wells, and that the ratios of methane to ethane and propane were different [figure 4b (3)]. Furthermore, the methane present in high concentrations in water wells was more thermogenic in both its 13C and 2H signatures than background values more than 1 km from a gas well. There are indeed low concentrations of thermogenic methane found across the region. That methane does not, however, look like the methane found in drinking water near gas wells.

Saba and Orzechowski (1) first state that, because average methane concentrations in nonactive water wells in the Genesee were higher than in active wells (1.5 mg L−1 vs. 0.3 mg L−1),

[Godzuki]

Faucet flames have been recorded in newspapers far back as the 1950's where man made natural gas development were not even a factor.
http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/extinquishing-the-flaming-faucet-exploding-the-myth/2845/


so its coincidence faucet water happens to be flammable after fracking in their town? why isn't this phenomenon occurring everywhere else, or at least common in other areas that have had no fracking?

[johndeeregreen]

Gasland is a joke. It doesn't even really present what fracturing really is. Half of it bitches about drilling, which has nothing to do with fracing. Heavy-handed and dishonest propaganda. Fracturing absolutely has its environmental repercussions, but that film is an absolute travesty.

How it works: Well casings are perforated at different locations (zones). After that, a tool, whether it be a plug, ball and sleeve system, etc, is placed so that when we pump our fluid downhole, it exits through the perfs at a pressure such that it creates fractures in underground formations. Once a "break" is achieved, sand is brought on to mix with the fluid and it prevents the cracks from falling down on themselves. The oil or natural gas flows through it basically like water through a screen door. Repeat. Wells can have a whole shitload of zones or just a few, it really depends. Different fluid systems and types of sand are used depending on the formation and what it will react to. EG limestone formations are frequently fraced with acid-based systems.

US companies are extremely cavalier and cowboy in their approach to fracing, and give it a bad name by their typical "not-give-a-shit" attitude. We have way more rules and environmental restrictions in place up here.

One thing to bear in mind, at this point there is no other way to turn those formations into highly productive wells. Get used to fracing because it's not going anywhere. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm not talking about it making a decent well a gusher. The returns from this process is absolutely monumental.

[KevinNYC]

Gasland is a joke. It doesn't even really present what fracturing really is. Half of it bitches about drilling, which has nothing to do with fracing. Heavy-handed and dishonest propaganda. Fracturing absolutely has its environmental repercussions, but that film is an absolute travesty.

How it works: Well casings are perforated at different locations (zones). After that, a tool, whether it be a plug, ball and sleeve system, etc, is placed so that when we pump our fluid downhole, it exits through the perfs at a pressure such that it creates fractures in underground formations. Once a "break" is achieved, sand is brought on to mix with the fluid and it prevents the cracks from falling down on themselves. The oil or natural gas flows through it basically like water through a screen door. Repeat. Wells can have a whole shitload of zones or just a few, it really depends. Different fluid systems and types of sand are used depending on the formation and what it will react to. EG limestone formations are frequently fraced with acid-based systems.

US companies are extremely cavalier and cowboy in their approach to fracing, and give it a bad name by their typical "not-give-a-shit" attitude. We have way more rules and environmental restrictions in place up here.

One thing to bear in mind, at this point there is no other way to turn those formations into highly productive wells. Get used to fracing because it's not going anywhere. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you work in the fracking industry?

[johndeeregreen]

Do you work in the fracking industry?
Yes I do.

[johndeeregreen]

And BTW, it's not a 'guise,' it will create jobs. That's a fact.

[Abd El-Krim]

you're the destroyer, man.

[johndeeregreen]

It's extremely one sided - but the one side it shows stays with you. Rednecks who were out for a quick buck who can now light the water from their facets on fire, or the one dude with a 50,000 water plant in his shed because all the groundwater around him is for shit.
The entire "fracturing caused flammable water" has been debunked countless times already. The examples used in the film are largely fiction, I'm sorry to tell you. Don't take my word for it either, simple research will show that he's full of shit.

I'm not going to sit here and say it can't happen, but if you believe the film you'd think it's automatic.

[falc39]

And I'm sure it will become more of a norm. The publicity surrounding, and activity of fracking is somewhat recent. Do you understand how the scientific process works? It takes 6-12 months to get a proposal through, another 6 months or so to get a grad student on the project and possibly a few more months to plan it and get site access. This is followed by 2 years of data collection, 6 months of analysis, writing, and getting it out of a committee, 4-6 more months of review, and then a couple more until it's published after acceptance. There's a 3-4 year lag time between a topic becoming relevant and peer reviewed results hitting the press.

Well I guess you must be psychic... :facepalm I didn't say that it's not possible it will harm no one, all I said was that we don't have enough to come to that conclusion yet, at least for us who aren't wildly biased. So many of you are jumping the gun and are out to halt an industry over a few small studies and a bad "documentary". If you want to argue with what the studies say years from now that's totally on you. I'm just talking about what we know now.

Oh yeah, good job quoting so much to say so little. Even the people who wrote that response acknowledge more research needs to be done.


The one problem I have with industry experts and politicians ignoring these studies (in more areas than just fracking) is that while maybe the studies aren't conclusive enough, they still raise an educated question of whether these activities do put people at risk.

And then I wonder what happens years or decades from now if we do find some of these activities did result in making people sick or killing people prematurely? Do the people in support of these activities simply get let off the hook by saying "Well shucks, ya people warned us of this, but what did you want us to do, go by unfinished data rather than make money and 'create jobs'?"

The problem that I have with this logic is that it's never fair on the flip side. So let's say they be extra safe and regulate/tax these companies based on those assumptions. Then decades later, what happens if new research goes to show that it's actually safe? Will the government refund the money that they took... or the money that all these companies had to shove in to regulation compliance to address their false assumptions? Never. Will the government refund the public on all the lost economic gain they could've gotten with fracking? Never.

When I was growing up, we were all indoctrinated into believing the food pyramid was the healthy way of eating. Turns out, new research shows that large amounts of carbohydrates (not gonna get to technical here for time's sake) actually contribute significantly to diabetes and obesity. That's unfortunate, so the government has been telling us the wrong thing all along. Can my whole generation sue the government now? Especially the ones who were misled into eating unhealthy and are now fat?

It's kind of unrealistic through new research to suddenly commit someone of a crime in which they did not have any intent or any knowledge of. We don't need more lawyers and there is always new research coming out. Even if you did, at least make it fair and make the flip side possible too. But you know the government would never do that... So that's my personal opinion what you brought up.

[Godzuki]

And BTW, it's not a 'guise,' it will create jobs. That's a fact.


thats not being disputed. obviously it will create jobs, lots of things can create jobs, but the question is, is it safe? is it worth the possible contamination of peoples water supply? its also obviously not a perfect science must like deep sea oil drilling. they can't all just be bad American companies doing it improperly....BP wasn't even American and they f'd up. sad thing is when they do screw up its covered by shareholders money, and most of them aren't held directly accountable for telling everyone its safe.

[Abd El-Krim]

The entire "fracturing caused flammable water" has been debunked countless times already. The examples used in the film are largely fiction, I'm sorry to tell you. Don't take my word for it either, simple research will show that he's full of shit.

I'm not going to sit here and say it can't happen, but if you believe the film you'd think it's automatic.

I don't believe that it causes it the majority of the time - but there are the fluke scenarios where it does. And for those people that is it happening to you can't help but feel for them.

[johndeeregreen]

I don't believe that it causes it the majority of the time - but there are the fluke scenarios where it does. And for those people that is it happening to you can't help but feel for them.
Obviously, I'm compelled to agree with you; I'm just saying that the cases presented in the film were determined to have been caused by naturally ocurring methane; that is, fracturing had nothing to do with it.

In short, the filmmaker is a liar and his "documentary" is about as objective as Triumph of the Will.

[falc39]

but theres not as much of an agenda against it than health/safety concerns from those thinking its unsafe. where as big business and Republicans all have probably millions/billions riding on assuring the public its safe...

and if oil drilling is anything to go by, any claims of it being so proven safe are highly unlikely compared to what they say or have said.

There is an agenda on both sides as it's been highly politicized already.

and seriously guys, there is nothing wrong with talking to people who work in the industry. Industry experts are a good thing, as they actually deal with the issues in real life and have real world experience. They work in the industry but are still experts after all. They can provide a perspective that is often missed. It doesn't mean they are faultless, but I rather listen to them at times than the countless expert "googlers" out there on the web.

[Godzuki]

The problem that I have with this logic is that it's never fair on the flip side. So let's say they be extra safe and regulate/tax these companies based on those assumptions. Then decades later, what happens if new research goes to show that it's actually safe? Will the government refund the money that they took... or the money that all these companies had to shove in to regulation compliance to address their false assumptions? Never. Will the government refund the public on all the lost economic gain they could've gotten with fracking? Never.



because technology will only get better. because they've already f'd up, and f'ing up digging for oil or natural gas is a major catastrophe, whether its contaminating the ocean with oil or communities drinking water with gas. who is going to answer for it 20 years from now when we know better ways to do it, and all of the people telling everyone is safe now are retired or dead? how much do they have on the line lying to the public for profit? i'd think very little since they're publicly traded company heads who get bonuses regardless of fail and being fired. if only we could be like China and make them put their lives on the line if they're wrong, or their whole personal fortunes, then at least they'd think twice before BS'ing everyone. i mean when you won't even drink the water you contaminated and expect everyone living there to deal with it is.... :facepalm

[DeuceWallaces]

Well I guess you must be psychic... :facepalm I didn't say that it's not possible it will harm no one, all I said was that we don't have enough to come to that conclusion yet, at least for us who aren't wildly biased. So many of you are jumping the gun and are out to halt an industry over a few small studies and a bad "documentary". If you want to argue with what the studies say years from now that's totally on you. I'm just talking about what we know now.

I quoted a well thought out response to a critique that was far more eloquent than your asinine statement questioning the statistical validity of a major scientific publication from the pre-eminent hydrology lab in the world. They went through, in detail, with responses to valid questions surrounding the paper. That quote was far from saying "nothing." Nearly every sentence was meaningful.

Just face it that you're a back tracking jackass who's just trying to be a contrarian when you've never even investigated peer reviewed scientific studies on the subject. To go even further you try to question their scientific/statistical validity when it's obvious you know nothing of either.

And no, I'm not psychic, but if you've witnessed NE American fracking operations or other mining exploits, are familiar with environmental research, and understand the lag time in the peer reviewed scientific process, then you would realize that more of these studies will likely be on the way with similar results.

You truly are uninformed and over your head.

[Abd El-Krim]

Obviously, I'm compelled to agree with you; I'm just saying that the cases presented in the film were determined to have been caused by naturally ocurring methane; that is, fracturing had nothing to do with it.

In short, the filmmaker is a liar and it is about as objective as Triumph of the Will.

Well then **** that ukulele playing tree-hugger.

[johndeeregreen]

its also obviously not a perfect science must like deep sea oil drilling. they can't all just be bad American companies doing it improperly....BP wasn't even American and they f'd up. sad thing is when they do screw up its covered by shareholders money, and most of them aren't held directly accountable for telling everyone its safe.
The environmental repercussions involved with offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing are not even remotely comparable. It's like comparing the danger of handguns vs. nuclear bombs.

[Godzuki]

There is an agenda on both sides as it's been highly politicized already.

and seriously guys, there is nothing wrong with talking to people who work in the industry. Industry experts are a good thing, as they actually deal with the issues in real life and have real world experience. They work in the industry but are still experts after all. They can provide a perspective that is often missed. It doesn't mean they are faultless, but I rather listen to them at times than the countless expert "googlers" out there on the web.


there is not as much of an agenda on the anti frack side since they're just concerned about their well being. at least not a personal gain agenda like there is from the oil/gas side.....

and you can't knock google. google should be able to find every possible argument to every possible issue, its not like there are only a handful of people that know the truth of how safe it is, who won't tell anybody, and you can only hear the truth directly from them. i think if anything those within industry don't really care about other peoples safety, unless they have to, especially at the cost of big profits/pay. i think that goes for most people working in any industry.

[falc39]

Just face it that you're a back tracking jackass who's just trying to be a contrarian when you've never even investigated peer reviewed scientific studies on the subject. To go even further you try to question their scientific/statistical validity when it's obvious you know nothing of either.

And no, I'm not psychic, but if you've witnessed NE American fracking operations or other mining exploits, are familiar with environmental research, and understand the lag time in the peer reviewed scientific process, then you would realize that more of these studies will likely be on the way with similar results.

You truly are uninformed and over your head.

Sorry bro, show me where in this thread I say fracking is harmless.

Really? Well here's a more recent study that argues the opposite: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10426765-its-not-frackings-fault-study-says

Again, I didn't jump to conclusions. You are. The only thing I concluded in here was that gasland was a shitty film and a bad place to start if you want to get "educated" on fracking...

When I said statistically I meant the whole picture and tying it with fracking. I was at work on a smartphone and I didn't have the patience to type out any explanations. Sorry you misunderstood

[falc39]

there is not as much of an agenda on the anti frack side since they're just concerned about their well being. at least not a personal gain agenda like there is from the oil/gas side.....

and you can't knock google. google should be able to find every possible argument to every possible issue, its not like there are only a handful of people that know the truth of how safe it is, who won't tell anybody, and you can only hear the truth directly from them. i think if anything those within industry don't really care about other peoples safety, unless they have to, especially at the cost of big profits/pay. i think that goes for most people working in any industry.

You'd be surprised how many people will attack something just because it is associated with a certain group or political party.

[Hazard]

I enjoyed reading the different opinions in this thread. I'm curious to know from a fracking employee what are the negative repercussions fracking brings to a community? Increased seismic activity seems to be a popular one, as is the contaminated drinking water (I understand that one is questionable), also what about the chemicals that are released into the atmosphere would that have any long term effects? Also I'm curious about the average life span of a fracking employee? Google has no data on that. I would assume there should be some info floating around since fracking has been around since 1947.

[johndeeregreen]

I enjoyed reading the different opinions in this thread. I'm curious to know from a fracking employee what are the negative repercussions fracking brings to a community? Increased seismic activity seems to be a popular one, as is the contaminated drinking water (I understand that one is questionable), also what about the chemicals that are released into the atmosphere would that have any long term effects? Also I'm curious about the average life span of a fracking employee? Google has no data on that. I would assume there should be some info floating around since fracking has been around since 1947.
The only thing fracturing crews release into the atmosphere is diesel exhaust.

Effects on a community? We don't frac anywhere near close enough to cities or towns for me to evaluate that with any credibility.

Average life span? Probably a good question back in the day, but nowadays, in Canada, safety is by far the biggest priority and frac companies and our clients are EXTREMELY stringent on forcing their employees to wear respirators/goggles/rubber gloves/etc. as necessary around any potentially harmful substances, whether that be sand dust or chemical product. If you're careful and play by the rules, being out there isn't nearly as dangerous as many people seem to believe. Medics, shower trucks, etc. are all on location in the off chance you expose yourself to chemical. Like anything else, some chemicals are relatively harmless and others you definitely don't want to get on you.

[Hazard]

I see. There is a lot of contradicting info floating around on the web, so its hard to find something purely scientific without an underlining agenda. It would be interesting to get my hands on some data to see if there is in fact degradation that is related to fracking that comes to surrounding areas of the site. My stance is that anything with that much financial backing is bound to have lots of skeletons in the closet. Not to say that movie gaslands is on point, but I would not be surprised if some if not most of those things in the movie are true.

[BoogieWoogieMan]

I thought this thread was about Battlestar Galactica.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/3/1/128804237161201202.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Sorry bro, show me where in this thread I say fracking is harmless.

Really? Well here's a more recent study that argues the opposite: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10426765-its-not-frackings-fault-study-says

Again, I didn't jump to conclusions. You are. The only thing I concluded in here was that gasland was a shitty film and a bad place to start if you want to get "educated" on fracking...

When I said statistically I meant the whole picture and tying it with fracking. I was at work on a smartphone and I didn't have the patience to type out any explanations. Sorry you misunderstood

I'll utilize the infamous list because it's obvious you have problems with focus and comprehension.

1) Don't call me bro.

2) Tell me where I said you said it was harmless.

3) That is essentially an industry report, not a peer reviewed scientific study.

4) You jumped to the conclusion that the scientific paper providing statistical evidence fracking contaminates local drinking water was somehow faulty.

5) You are now backtracking that you were at work on a smartphone. So you essentially didn't even read the pdf, and apparently have no concept of the use or meaning of statistics in a scientific paper despite your claim that the statistics were faulty, while they were in fact the opposite.

6) I didn't misunderstand, you were misinformed and started talking out of your ass.

7) I think it's time for you to leave this thread, because you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

At least JDG is in the industry, and by his proclamation Canada has more concern for human and environmental safety. I can't comment on that, but it's more valuable than the BS Falc is spewing.

[rufuspaul]

Lol I just noticed that paper came from Robert Jackson's lab at Duke; one of the most distinguished hydrologists and physiologists in the world.



And how ironic that fracking is going to occur in his back yard.

[rufuspaul]

Effects on a community? We don't frac anywhere near close enough to cities or towns for me to evaluate that with any credibility.



The bill that was just approved will allow the industry to tap into a proposed source that is in some heavily populated counties, basically right through the center of the state.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ya, unfortunately in the Eastern US there is no "middle of nowhere."

[KevinNYC]

Well then **** that ukulele playing tree-hugger.

Dude, there's still tickets available if you want to join me.

http://www.nyukefest.com/

[KevinNYC]

I enjoyed reading the different opinions in this thread. I'm curious to know from a fracking employee what are the negative repercussions fracking brings to a community? Increased seismic activity seems to be a popular one, as is the contaminated drinking water (I understand that one is questionable), also what about the chemicals that are released into the atmosphere would that have any long term effects? Also I'm curious about the average life span of a fracking employee? Google has no data on that. I would assume there should be some info floating around since fracking has been around since 1947.

John Deere can probably answer this, but my understanding is today's fracking is a lot different from the old time fracking.

[falc39]

I'll utilize the infamous list because it's obvious you have problems with focus and comprehension.

1) Don't call me bro.

2) Tell me where I said you said it was harmless.

3) That is essentially an industry report, not a peer reviewed scientific study.

4) You jumped to the conclusion that the scientific paper providing statistical evidence fracking contaminates local drinking water was somehow faulty.

5) You are now backtracking that you were at work on a smartphone. So you essentially didn't even read the pdf, and apparently have no concept of the use or meaning of statistics in a scientific paper despite your claim that the statistics were faulty, while they were in fact the opposite.

6) I didn't misunderstand, you were misinformed and started talking out of your ass.

7) I think it's time for you to leave this thread, because you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

At least JDG is in the industry, and by his proclamation Canada has more concern for human and environmental safety. I can't comment on that, but it's more valuable than the BS Falc is spewing.

Wow, do I need to quote myself now to make myself clear? I hope not. I never said the paper was faulty. I said it was not convincing enough, that is why I never jumped to conclusions and said it was causing problems or not... you did. The paper itself was lacking data, even the people who did the paper admits to and wishes they had. Statistically, I meant that it is a very small sample size out of the whole fracking operations across the country, so it wasn't convincing enough to a lot of people including me.

I am not backtracking that I was at work on my phone. I specifically said it in the first post in this thread:


Judging by the replies already in the thread, you may want to look elsewhere...

So many gasland references lol. Gasland is not a good place to start at all. The engineering circles see that film as a joke/entertainment and it's been debunked already. I would post more and link more but I'm at work and on my phone...

Look at the post yourself because it seems you can't read it correctly. It's not edited or anything and it's time-stamped earlier. jesus christ this is ridiculous lol. you are really grasping at straws here...

To your credit, if I knew you were going to post/quote all that, I would've explained what I was saying more clearly before you would post it to save you time. But by the time I read it, it was already done and I was busy still at work.

And are you in the industry? No. I have a stem background, as do you (i think)... so I dont know what you want to get at there. I swear some people just want to argue for the heck of it lol

[johndeeregreen]

John Deere can probably answer this, but my understanding is today's fracking is a lot different from the old time fracking.
Honestly guys I would like to answer more questions, even generalized ones, but what we do on location is kept so close to the vest that I don't feel really comfortable discussing my company's policies etc. on a public forum. I can answer any general fracing questions in a broad sense, but in terms of specifics, what we do differently than our American counterparts, etc, it just probably isn't the best idea to get into on the Internet.

[rufuspaul]

Honestly guys I would like to answer more questions, even generalized ones, but what we do on location is kept so close to the vest that I don't feel really comfortable discussing my company's policies etc. on a public forum. I can answer any general fracing questions in a broad sense, but in terms of specifics, what we do differently than our American counterparts, etc, it just probably isn't the best idea to get into on the Internet.


Very telling. Very telling indeed.

[johndeeregreen]

Very telling. Very telling indeed.
If you are being serious, you're reading too much into it. It's not top secret stuff, but every company does things a little bit differently and it's entirely possible that they don't want their policies and procedures posted on an Internet basketball forum.

[Balla_Status]

Been awhile since I've been here. Got bored and decided to check in. I'll come back to this later. Got a frac to engineer tomorrow.

[DeuceWallaces]

Wow, do I need to quote myself now to make myself clear? I hope not. I never said the paper was faulty. I said it was not convincing enough, that is why I never jumped to conclusions and said it was causing problems or not... you did. The paper itself was lacking data, even the people who did the paper admits to and wishes they had. Statistically, I meant that it is a very small sample size out of the whole fracking operations across the country, so it wasn't convincing enough to a lot of people including me.

I am not backtracking that I was at work on my phone. I specifically said it in the first post in this thread:



Look at the post yourself because it seems you can't read it correctly. It's not edited or anything and it's time-stamped earlier. jesus christ this is ridiculous lol. you are really grasping at straws here...

To your credit, if I knew you were going to post/quote all that, I would've explained what I was saying more clearly before you would post it to save you time. But by the time I read it, it was already done and I was busy still at work.

And are you in the industry? No. I have a stem background, as do you (i think)... so I dont know what you want to get at there. I swear some people just want to argue for the heck of it lol

Lol wtf are you talking about? Are you retarded? You made a bunch of asinine statements and now you want to act like someone is arguing just for the hell of it? Stop acting a fool on a subject you know little about and you'll avoid similar incidents. I'm just not a fan of ignorance so you've found yourself under attack.

What exactly do you do? I can't imagine you being proficient in any scientific field that would qualify any of the statements you've made here, because you appear to be full of shit.

[falc39]

Lol wtf are you talking about? Are you retarded? You made a bunch of asinine statements and now you want to act like someone is arguing just for the hell of it? Stop acting a fool on a subject you know little about and you'll avoid similar incidents. I'm just not a fan of ignorance so you've found yourself under attack.

What exactly do you do? I can't imagine you being proficient in any scientific field that would qualify any of the statements you've made here, because you appear to be full of shit.

I'm a civil engineer working in the traffic/transportation industry. I have previous experience in land development and the majority of my elective classes were in geotechnical engineering. I almost took a job working in the oil industry, but I chose to stay in state with a job that pays better.

I only entered this thread originally because I sensed heavy bias and I tried to warn the OP about it.

Notice how all my posts earlier were very minimal with little sentences? That's because it's a pain in the ass to post on these forums on my smartphone. Nevermind trying to do even more advance stuff like linking and opening multiple pages on my phone browser. You think I'm going to risk logging in and posting stuff on a work computer :oldlol: ? It's the reason why I have to minimize my sentences and use the least words possible and that's probably where the misunderstanding comes from. I can't even go back and edit on my smartphone at times... it's usually easier to delete everything between it and start all over again which can be immensely frustrating. I'm done explaining and I'll still be able to sleep at night if you don't believe me.

There are still a lot of things I need to see in order to be convinced that the dangers of fracking are as bad as the media and political groups are making it. Not only that fracking causes this stuff, but that there is significant risk that it is dangerous to humans. As you know, certain thresholds usually have to be reached for that to be considered true. Just because there are small tremors don't make it dangerous. A lot of people are jumping to conclusions. Given what has come out so far, nothing has convinced me yet that both of these things have been proven.

[DeuceWallaces]

You've proved to be an ignoramus so I'm not gonna continue to waste my time making a fool of you, but I do find it hilarious you consider allegedly being a civil engineer who took some geo-tech classes (lol) and almost took an oil job (more lol's) as having an impact on any level towards your credibility in this conversation.

[falc39]

You've proved to be an ignoramus so I'm not gonna continue to waste my time making a fool of you, but I do find it hilarious you consider allegedly being a civil engineer who took some geo-tech classes (lol) and almost took an oil job (more lol's) as having an impact on any level towards your credibility in this conversation.

and you? what about your background? :oldlol:

you have hardly made a fool out of me. all you did was latch on to something and desperately tried to use it against me even though it has more to do with semantics than anything. again, i'm sorry you misunderstood me bro

you're the fool because you probably spent the whole day on this site researching this stuff while other people were working and you know, doing other stuff with their lives.

I should've known to not bother once you started attacking me personally. It's why i never get attached to forums in the first place...

[KevinNYC]

John Deere can probably answer this, but my understanding is today's fracking is a lot different from the old time fracking.
There's a reason this is in the news now and the reason is fracking for gas is a fairly recent development and it was only shown to be economically viable until the past ten years which is why this is just reaching North Carolina now.

The fracking that occurred in the 40's was fracking through limestone. There was no way to get gas from shale back then. They would drill straight through shale to get to the limestone usually as part of oil drilling, not gas drilling. It was in 1997 that the modern technique of fracking shale was demonstrated by Mitchell Energy in Texas and that is what set off the modern shale gas boom.

The following image is from the Breakthrough Institute which is a think tank intending to shake up current liberal thinking. They describe themselves as "as leading independent public policy think tank and pioneering advocate of an innovation-centered approach to national and global energy and climate challenges." They focus on innovations and how often innovations are built upon government subsidized research. It shows the important developments that led to commercially viable extraction of gas from shale.

The two big developments were horizontally drilling which allows you to drill down and then over (which requires special recently developed drill bits as well) and micro-seismic imaging without which you would know where the gas fractures were. This imaging allows you to create a "frack map"
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/12/history_of_the_shale_gas_revolution.shtml
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Shale_Gas_Infographic-thumb-550x529.png

There was also over 20 years of tax breaks for this type of gas exploration.

Here's how wikipedia describes this history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#cite_note-14)

Shale gas was first extracted as a resource in Fredonia, NY in 1821,[12][13] in shallow, low-pressure fractures. Work on industrial-scale shale gas production did not begin until the 1970s, when declining production potential from conventional gas deposits in the United States spurred the federal government to invest in R&D and demonstration projects[14] that ultimately led to directional and horizontal drilling, microseismic imaging, and massive hydraulic fracturing. Up until the public and private R&D and demonstration projects of the 1970s and 1980s, drilling in shale was not considered to be commercially viable.

Early federal government investments in shale gas began with the Eastern Gas Shales Project in 1976 and the annual FERC-approved research budget of the Gas Research Institute. The Department of Energy later partnered with private gas companies to complete the first successful air-drilled multi-fracture horizontal well in shale in 1986. The federal government further incentivized drilling in shale via the Section 29 tax credit for unconventional gas from 1980-2000. Microseismic imaging, a crucial input to both hydraulic fracturing in shale and offshore oil drilling, originated from coalbeds research at Sandia National Laboratories. In 1991 the Department of Energy subsidized Texas gas company Mitchell Energy's first horizontal drill in the Barnett Shale in north Texas.[citation needed]

Mitchell Energy utilized all these component technologies and techniques to achieve the first economical shale fracture in 1998 using an innovative process called slick-water fracturing

[KevinNYC]

The New York Times has a whole series that skeptical of gas hydrofracking.
Drilling Down (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html)

The part that was surprising to me is not the environmental skepticism, it's the financial skepticism.
Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&sq=marcellus&st=cse&scp=12)
[QUOTE]Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells.

In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. Many of these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.

[KevinNYC]

The New York Times has a whole series that skeptical of gas hydrofracking.
Drilling Down (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html)

The part that was surprising to me is not the environmental skepticism, it's the financial skepticism.
Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&sq=marcellus&st=cse&scp=12)
[QUOTE]Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells.

In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. Many of these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.

[DeuceWallaces]

and you? what about your background? :oldlol:

you have hardly made a fool out of me. all you did was latch on to something and desperately tried to use it against me even though it has more to do with semantics than anything. again, i'm sorry you misunderstood me bro

you're the fool because you probably spent the whole day on this site researching this stuff while other people were working and you know, doing other stuff with their lives.

I should've known to not bother once you started attacking me personally. It's why i never get attached to forums in the first place...

Nothing has been mis-understood. You just talk BS and hope no one will call you on it and it will sound cool? intelligent?

You've done nothing but mis-step, back-track, and bullshit through this whole thread outside of you Earth shattering proclamation that Gasland is *gasp* biased.

Just stop.

[falc39]

The part that was surprising to me is not the environmental skepticism, it's the financial skepticism.
Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&sq=marcellus&st=cse&scp=12)


They even have some ofthe actual emails of energy insiders up online. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.html#document/p39/a22716)

That's actually interesting. Some of the e-mails are a couple years old, I wonder if they still have the same opinion now. It's common sense that not all locations are created equal for extraction. Either way, if it is financially unsustainable, the market will eventually take care of it. Investors inherently know there is a risk in any investment. I'm pretty sure they wont get a bailout :D


Nothing has been mis-understood. You just talk BS and hope no one will call you on it and it will sound cool? intelligent?

You've done nothing but mis-step, back-track, and bullshit through this whole thread outside of you Earth shattering proclamation that Gasland is *gasp* biased.

Just stop.

lol I thought you said you were done wasting time with me? I guess not. Never seen you on tilt this bad before :oldlol:

Your posts have degraded into simple insults and name calling. I've already answered all the questions you had about me, there is nothing for me to hide or feel bad about. And what about your background that makes you so much more qualified again? yup... silence.

Keep going, your the one with the ego and major investment on this forum. I'm not the one with 14,000+ posts and a picture of myself on the avatar. This is gonna reach ether proportions :oldlol:

[Jailblazers7]

The important that I am noticing in this thread is that the environmental effects of fracing in the US are unknown and that somehow the burden of proof has been placed on the public/scientific community to back their claims with conclusive statistical analysis. That seems pretty backwards to me. Mining companies should have the burden of proving that their techniques are safe before causing irreversible damage. Currently, they will just do their thing until someone proves it is unsafe and then walk away with a pile of cash. This would be like the pharmacuetical industry releasing medication into the market and then saying "We will stop selling it once someone shows conclusive proof that our product is dangerous."

[rufuspaul]

The important that I am noticing in this thread is that the environmental effects of fracing in the US are unknown and that somehow the burden of proof has been placed on the public/scientific community to back their claims with conclusive statistical analysis. That seems pretty backwards to me. Mining companies should have the burden of proving that their techniques are safe before causing irreversible damage. Currently, they will just do their thing until someone proves it is unsafe and then walk away with a pile of cash. This would be like the pharmacuetical industry releasing medication into the market and then saying "We will stop selling it once someone shows conclusive proof that our product is dangerous."


That's exactly what's happening. Check this out:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/08/3300033/senate-committee-likes-the-slow.html

Another example of the NC senate telling scientists to go fvck themselves.

[KevinNYC]

The important that I am noticing in this thread is that the environmental effects of fracing in the US are unknown and that somehow the burden of proof has been placed on the public/scientific community to back their claims with conclusive statistical analysis. That seems pretty backwards to me. Mining companies should have the burden of proving that their techniques are safe before causing irreversible damage. Currently, they will just do their thing until someone proves it is unsafe and then walk away with a pile of cash. This would be like the pharmacuetical industry releasing medication into the market and then saying "We will stop selling it once someone shows conclusive proof that our product is dangerous."


One thing I found quite interesting while looking this up is the EPA was trying research how many times it was proven this sort of mining affected local water. They knew of one case that was proven and when the tried to look for others they found hundreds of cases that sounded similar but were settled and the court records sealed. They tried to get that information, but have no been able to. So apparently even the government agency in charge of public safety cannot get information pertaining to that.

[shlver]

The important that I am noticing in this thread is that the environmental effects of fracing in the US are unknown and that somehow the burden of proof has been placed on the public/scientific community to back their claims with conclusive statistical analysis. That seems pretty backwards to me. Mining companies should have the burden of proving that their techniques are safe before causing irreversible damage. Currently, they will just do their thing until someone proves it is unsafe and then walk away with a pile of cash. This would be like the pharmacuetical industry releasing medication into the market and then saying "We will stop selling it once someone shows conclusive proof that our product is dangerous."
What? The physics is sound. The marcellus formation is more than 5000 ft below the surface. Water wells are less than 1500 ft down and salty brine water wells below that. For any contamination to occur, contamination has to travel 3500 ft or more. If contamination occurred, fat soluble chemicals are not used so there would be no buildup int he food chain. I've posted the physics before in which fracking can contaminate and it is due to solely bad casing. Even with bad casing, the psi of the aquifer is still higher than the psi of well, the aquifer will still not be contaminated as it will draw both fluid as well as water from the aquifer. The problem comes when a well is shut in with bad casing and creates a pressure gradient up the well and into rock layers.
Burden of proof is definitely on those claiming harm with no compelling evidence. Fracking has passed and worked with EPA standards. If I say you spilled chemicals in my lake and you can't prove you didn't. Is that your burden of proof?

[Jailblazers7]

What? The physics is sound. The marcellus formation is more than 5000 ft below the surface. Water wells are less than 1500 ft down and salty brine water wells below that. For any contamination to occur, contamination has to travel 3500 ft or more. If contamination occurred, fat soluble chemicals are not used so there would be no buildup int he food chain. I've posted the physics before in which fracking can contaminate and it is due to solely bad casing. Even with bad casing, the psi of the aquifer is still higher than the psi of well, the aquifer will still not be contaminated as it will draw both fluid as well as water from the aquifer. The problem comes when a well is shut in with bad casing and creates a pressure gradient up the well and into rock layers.
Burden of proof is definitely on those claiming harm with no compelling evidence. Fracking has passed and worked with EPA standards. If I say you spilled chemicals in my lake and you can't prove you didn't. Is that your burden of proof?

My comment was more of an observation of the conversation going on in this thread. Probably would have been wise for me to do some research on fracing but I'm busy and don't feel like putting in the time. However, the article Duece posted does seem like some pretty compelling evidence to me and it is much more than an empty claim. I tend to air on the side of caution whenever it comes to issues that could have potentially harmful long-term side effects.

[shlver]

My comment was more of an observation of the conversation going on in this thread. Probably would have been wise for me to do some research on fracing but I'm busy and don't feel like putting in the time. However, the article Duece posted does seem like some pretty compelling evidence to me and it is much more than an empty claim. I tend to air on the side of caution whenever it comes to issues that could have potentially harmful long-term side effects.

Finally, we agree with the writers of both letters that more data will be helpful
Compelling evidence with this disclaimer. It is a response that basically says that conclusions cannot be made because there is no compelling evidence.

[Jailblazers7]

Compelling evidence with this disclaimer. It is a response that basically says that conclusions cannot be made because there is no compelling evidence.

It is a disclaimer that is to be kept in mind when developing future research. It is a preliminary finding (which needs to be backed up with more data in the future) that is compelling and warrants a discussion about the environmental effects of fracing.

[shlver]

It is a disclaimer that is to be kept in mind when developing future research. It is a preliminary finding (which needs to be backed up with more data in the future) that is compelling and warrants a discussion about the environmental effects of fracing.
I think i found the original study, not the response. I'll look over that first before i respond.

We found no evidence for contamination of drinking water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and-possibly- regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extration and to improve public confidence in its use.
They saw a correlation, coincidental or caused, is in question because some wells were not found to have methane near drill sites. The bold and disconnect of presence of methane in wells near drill sites confirms my statement that the problem most likely is casing and there is nothing wrong with the fracturing process as long as the well is not shut in. To elaborate, shoddy casing may have been a factor showing increased concentrations of methane(though not in all locations near drill sites), but no contamination from fracking liquids which supports the physics that I described.

[DeuceWallaces]

I think i found the original study, not the response. I'll look over that first before i respond.

They saw a correlation, coincidental or caused, is in question because some wells were not found to have methane near drill sites. The bold and disconnect of presence of methane in wells near drill sites confirms my statement that the problem most likely is casing and there is nothing wrong with the fracturing process as long as the well is not shut in. To elaborate, shoddy casing may have been a factor showing increased concentrations of methane(though not in all locations near drill sites), but no contamination from fracking liquids which supports the physics that I described.

Except no one was arguing that it was so I don't see your point. As with most resource excavation it's auxiliary activities which do the most damage. Coal mining itself is not a source of soil and water contamination, but blowing up the mountain and its aftereffects are.

Fracking operations appear to have an effect of local water supplies and god knows what it's doing to soils or above ground processes. The Jackson paper I assume to be one of the first of many to show this.

[DEADPOOLZOMBIE]

I thought this thread was about Battlestar Galactica.
QFT

[AlphaWolf24]

I'll try to make it simple.

Fracking mostly consists of "drilling" a hole deep down into a area that hopefully contains sometype of Fossil Fuel.

- The hole can be drilled vertical and once it reaches a certain depth it can be drilled horizontal also...

- after the Hole/well is drilled it has a steel tube inserted and cased (on the outside) with concrete..then a smaller tube is inserted and cased with concrete.(2 solid steel tubes with 2 layers of concrete....

- an explosive device(think large Shotgun type) is lower into the bottom of the well and when charged will blow small holes into the bottom of the well..."preforating" the end that is close to the source of Fossil Fuels.

- explosive device is removed,....the well head is fitted with a machine that injects a mixture of Water and Chemicals (think carosene) at a really high pressure....the water mixture shoots down the well and through the holes at the end bfreaking up the rock inside the earth releasing the fossil fuel...

- when the device at the top of the well head is removed then wammo....we have Fuel.



______________________________

Why we need Fossil Fuel..

because we are spoiled by everything it gives us...

- indoor plumbing
- computers
- Fossil Fuel helped end Slavery in the U.S.
- Saved the whale population from extinction (we used whale oil before we learned how to get Fossil Fuels)
- Food to our tables
- Cars
- Manufacturing of nearly everything runs off of petroluem based projects
- cleaning products
- Phones
- Building material for Homes
- mass Transit
- Roads
- Coffee
- TV's and Books are made with Petro based products

that is only a sliver of what we have from Petro based



think about how much Fossil Fuel the world gets daily...and a couple of Birds get dirty when there is a spill...would you be willing to give up everything we have becuase thier is mistakes once in a while??


the only way to not harm anything is to go back and live in Caves and hunt our own food and have nothing.

a world without Fuel would look alot like 3rd world country rather then a green pasture with people running through fields...holding hands

[shlver]

Except no one was arguing that it was so I don't see your point. As with most resource excavation it's auxiliary activities which do the most damage. Coal mining itself is not a source of soil and water contamination, but blowing up the mountain and its aftereffects are.

Fracking operations appear to have an effect of local water supplies and god knows what it's doing to soils or above ground processes. The Jackson paper I assume to be one of the first of many to show this.
My point is fracking and the physics behind it are safe. Jailblazers was talking about proving whether or not techniques are safe and I was demonstrating that they were as long as proper protocol are followed. Even with bad protocol, significant contamination is not present because the physics does not allow it. Even with the correlation, it is just that. A correlation. It doesn't have a conclusive answer on the cause. Also the study misleads by including hydraulic fracturing when there is no contamination directly from fracking. This is not compelling evidence.

[johndeeregreen]

Fracking mostly consists of "drilling" a hole deep down into a area that hopefully contains sometype of Fossil Fuel.
No it does not. That's called "drilling." Drilling and fracturing are two completely different services that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Fracturing occurs after the drilling rig and crew are finished and left location.


- after the Hole/well is drilled it has a steel tube inserted and cased (on the outside) with concrete..then a smaller tube is inserted and cased with concrete.(2 solid steel tubes with 2 layers of concrete....
This is called "cementing," another service that isn't fracturing.


- an explosive device(think large Shotgun type) is lower into the bottom of the well and when charged will blow small holes into the bottom of the well..."preforating" the end that is close to the source of Fossil Fuels.
Still not fracing, wireline generally lowers their perf guns downhole and fires them. Also, it's not just shot off at the bottom of the well. Wells are perf'd at many different locations in the casing where the client thinks it would be most effective. Being at the end of the casing has nothing to do with it.


- explosive device is removed,....the well head is fitted with a machine that injects a mixture of Water and Chemicals (think carosene) at a really high pressure....the water mixture shoots down the well and through the holes at the end bfreaking up the rock inside the earth releasing the fossil fuel...
This is also completely, 100% NOT how fracturing is accomplished. Where are you getting this nonsense?

Don't act like you know what you're talking about when you're completely ignorant. Is this what Gasland and American media are teaching people that fracturing is?

[Balla_Status]

I'm on a frac job right now. I'm not doing much on the particular type of job right now so I have some time. Ok.

We have equipment that mixes up water, chemicals and sand (99% of it is water and sand). We've pumped 5 chemicals downhole (not 200 like gasland says).

Then we have high pressure pumps that provide horsepower based on pressure and rate.

Then these are connected to a pump manifold that hold valves. Then lines are connected from the manifold to the wellhead and flowback tank. (Not a machine, this is manual labor folks).

Fluid is pumped down (slick water or gel system) the wellhead to the perfs (usually done with a perf gun or ball and sleeve system like JDG mentioned earlier). Each frac may have more than one zone. Some may only have one. Depends on a lot of things.

The fluid breaks through the near wellbore section of the well then into the formation where the frac is initiated. (There could be one single frac or numerous fracs. Depends on the fluid system used and the properties of the formation).

The sand keeps the frac open and then after the frac is done, it's flowed back (the amount of time to wait to flow back the well is dependent on numerous things but the main purpose is to flow back as little sand as possible).

I'll provide a paper that is meant to educate the general public about fracing.

We don't frac with methane so the whole nonsense about methane showing up in water faucets as a result of fracking is wrong.

What shiver is saying is correct. IT would be a failure of cement/casing for methane to be leaked into a water table. And that's not from fracking.

Ok, we're starting again. Back to supplying the world's energy demand.

[Jailblazers7]

Appreciate the info guys. Its good to know exactly how fracing works whenever forming an opinion on the issue. I work at a consulting firm that deals a lot with engineering firms and state/local govts in PA and Ohio so this info will prob be useful in the future.

[AlphaWolf24]

johndeeregreen]No it does not. That's called "drilling." Drilling and fracturing are two completely different services that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Fracturing occurs after the drilling rig and crew are finished and left location.

:facepalm U **** ....I was explaining the whole process...you have to drill a hole.



This is called "cementing," another service that isn't fracturing.

:facepalm ..yes you have to cement the casing...


Still not fracing, wireline generally lowers their perf guns downhole and fires them. Also, it's not just shot off at the bottom of the well. Wells are perf'd at many different locations in the casing where the client thinks it would be most effective. Being at the end of the casing has nothing to do with it.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm once again I was trying to explain the process....


This is also completely, 100% NOT how fracturing is accomplished. Where are you getting this nonsense?

from talking to engineers and visiting leases...


Don't act like you know what you're talking about when you're completely ignorant. Is this what Gasland and American media are teaching people that fracturing is.

gosh I hope you are fishing..if you really are this wetalldid:facepalm

[johndeeregreen]

:facepalm U **** ....I was explaining the whole process...you have to drill a hole.
You're the one that said "Fracking mostly consists of "drilling" a hole deep down into a area that hopefully contains sometype of Fossil Fuel", not me. Fracing has nothing to do with drilling a hole, not "mostly." Two completely different services that aren't even on location at the same time. Don't get upset because you don't have a clue of what the actual frac process entails. Your words, not mine.


from talking to engineers and visiting leases...
Uh huh.:rolleyes: Whatever, kid. Nobody who has ever talked to a frac engineer or been on a lease when fracing is happening would say that there is a magical wellhead attachment that manages to take water from the tanks, mix chemmies & sand, and pump at either a rate or pressure high enough to actual create fractures. Your description honestly could not possibly be more wrong. You have no f*cking idea how the frac process actually occurs. It's blatantly obvious.


once again I was trying to explain the process....
And once again you're wrong about it. You don't just lower the perf guns down and fire off at the end of the hole and call it good. That's ridiculous. Your ignorance shines through again.


gosh I hope you are fishing..if you really are this wetalldid:facepalm
You are making such a fool of yourself, it's hilarious. You think drilling is fracturing, you think that an omnipotent wellhead attachment DOES the fracing, and I'm the one that's fishing?:oldlol:

You're completely ****ing clueless on this subject.

LOL @ a single wellhead attachment completing a frac. You are unreal.

[AlphaWolf24]

johndeeregreen]You're the one that said "Fracking mostly consists of "drilling" a hole deep down into a area that hopefully contains sometype of Fossil Fuel", not me. Fracing has nothing to do with drilling a hole, not "mostly." Two completely different services that aren't even on location at the same time. Don't get upset because you don't have a clue of what the actual frac process entails. Your words, not mine.


I was trying to best describe the whole process..."mostly" was referring to the whole blanket ...there has to be a hole drilled..either a existing well or a new one. You can't stick a straw in the ground and blow water in the top soil.


Uh huh.:rolleyes: Whatever, kid. Nobody who has ever talked to a frac engineer or been on a lease when fracing is happening would say that there is a magical wellhead attachment that manages to take water from the tanks, mix chemmies & sand, and pump at either a rate or pressure high enough to actual create fractures. Your description honestly could not possibly be more wrong. You have no f*cking idea how the frac process actually occurs. It's blatantly obvious.


http://www.justbeneaththesurfacewv.com/images/Galleries/Drilling%20Photos/IOGA9764.jpg

http://www.justbeneaththesurfacewv.com/photogallery/Drilling-Photos.aspx


And once again you're wrong about it. You don't just lower the perf guns down and fire off at the end of the hole and call it good. That's ridiculous. Your ignorance shines through again.

http://www.blueridgegroup.com/BRv2.0/Images/primerimage16.jpg



You are making such a fool of yourself, it's hilarious. You think drilling is fracturing, you think that an omnipotent wellhead attachment DOES the fracing, and I'm the one that's fishing?:oldlol:

I was trying to best describe in it a way OP coul understand....break it down barney style for him/her


You're completely ****ing clueless on this subject.

LOL @ a single wellhead attachment completing a frac. You are unreal

go away son...it's clear you are a bad fisherman...and hopefully you are not in the EONR industry...it's mentality's like yours that ruin it.


(thumps chest)




get back in my pocket.


next

[AlphaWolf24]

OP check it>>>>http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthlandMovie

[johndeeregreen]

EDIT: I'm just going to end it with this: AlphaWolf, I do this for a living, and I'm telling you that you are incorrect. The picture you posted is of valves and other wellhead isolation equipment. These absolutely do not pump fluid downhole, mix fluid, complete ANY part of the frac whatsoever. If you drop the cunty attitude, I'd be happy to let you know how the fracturing process actually works; if you want to continue your delusion and try to lecture someone who is on location daily actually doing this stuff, whatever. I'm not pissing away time arguing with someone who posts pictures and doesn't even know what he's looking at.

BTW, all that diagram of perf guns was that: a diagram. I can tell you from direct experience that the oil company decides where to fire the guns off at, for how many zones, etc. It's simply not just lowered to the bottom and fired off. It's just not.

[johndeeregreen]

EDIT: If, after the previous post, you're still inclined to think you know better than me, please describe the circled part of the wellhead and it's function, as it relates to the fracturing process.

http://oi50.tinypic.com/14mdn7.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

I didn't realize there'd be a quiz.

[Rojogaqu11]

I also came in thinking this was about BSG.

[johndeeregreen]

I didn't realize there'd be a quiz.
This is like if I said I knew more about f*cking plants than you.

Hey Deuce, photosynthesis is a myth. Plants survive on electricity.

That is what this guy is doing right now.

[Balla_Status]

Annnnnnd JDG shuts this thread down. Good work.

[AlphaWolf24]

EDIT: I'm just going to end it with this: AlphaWolf, I do this for a living, and I'm telling you that you are incorrect. The picture you posted is of valves and other wellhead isolation equipment. These absolutely do not pump fluid downhole, mix fluid, complete ANY part of the frac whatsoever. If you drop the cunty attitude, I'd be happy to let you know how the fracturing process actually works; if you want to continue your delusion and try to lecture someone who is on location daily actually doing this stuff, whatever. I'm not pissing away time arguing with someone who posts pictures and doesn't even know what he's looking at.

BTW, all that diagram of perf guns was that: a diagram. I can tell you from direct experience that the oil company decides where to fire the guns off at, for how many zones, etc. It's simply not just lowered to the bottom and fired off. It's just not.


comprehend much?

I was trying to explain it in a broad stroke term...so OP would understand.
once again...I was trying to explain it in a simple way...


me - Drill hole....case hole with steel pipe and concrete

you - NOOOO!!!!!....DRILLING!!!....

me - lower explosive device into bottom of well and perforate well

you - - WHAT!!!.....you don't lower it in the bottom!!....you can put it anywhere!!

me - attach Hydrolic Rig to head of well and inject water and chemical into well to break Rock and allow Fossil fule to flow up well

you - OMG!!!...it's so much more then that!!

me - place well head on well (your valve) and wammo...

you- AlphaWolf you have an attitude man....


if you really work in the EOGR field then I hope you are admin....field crew doesn't need rocks like you around the leases..



next

[johndeeregreen]

So you were trying to simplify it by telling him exactly how it's NOT done. Yeah, that makes sense. And you're backtracking now anyway. You said that a wellhead 'machine' pumps fluid downhole. It doesn't. That's complete bullshit. You don't just 'place head on well and wammo," what the **** is wrong with you? The fact that you STILL believe that anything on the wellhead does any pumping/mixing of fluid whatsoever makes it obvious that you've never been on location during a frac. And now you're arguing the most BASIC of points with someone who does it for a living, and telling them they're wrong. You have problems.

BTW, you gonna answer my question or what? Of course you aren't, because you don't have a clue. If you knew you would have jumped all over it. Instead you reply with smartass remarks. My God you're a *****.

[AlphaWolf24]

So you were trying to simplify it by telling him exactly how it's NOT done. Yeah, that makes sense. And you're backtracking now anyway. You said that a wellhead 'machine' pumps fluid downhole. It doesn't. That's complete bullshit. You don't just 'place head on well and wammo," what the **** is wrong with you? The fact that you STILL believe that anything on the wellhead does any pumping/mixing of fluid whatsoever makes it obvious that you've never been on location during a frac. And now you're arguing the most BASIC of points with someone who does it for a living, and telling them they're wrong. You have problems.

BTW, you gonna answer my question or what? Of course you aren't, because you don't have a clue. If you knew you would have jumped all over it. Instead you reply with smartass remarks. My God you're a *****.


1. http://media.al.com/businessnews/photo/gaswell-0711jpg-7c030df01ce77047_large.jpg

2. much like a safety release valve in case of to much pressure.....your kindergarten oval shows a very lower end BOP ..of course in California we have the smost strict regulatory so our Blow out preventers are much higher quality....then your backwoods equipment.

3. I broke it down barney style for the OP...everything I said was correct...I hope you are not in California(even though most likely you don't even have a job)....as we strive to set the example for EOGR .... your Rock mentality would ruin it for the industry.

(you explain nothing but tell everyone there are wrong:lol..you have 0 clue son )


2EZ....get back in my pocket kid.

[johndeeregreen]

2. much like a safety release valve in case of to much pressure
Nope, once again you're wrong.


3. I broke it down barney style for the OP...everything I said was correct...I hope you are not in California(even though most likely you don't even have a job)....as we strive to set the example for EOGR .... your Rock mentality would ruin it for the industry.
You told OP a wellhead machine manages to accomplish the frac singlehandedly! When it has nothing to do with pumping the job! You're not simplifying, you're lying through your teeth.


(you explain nothing but tell everyone there are wrong:lol..you have 0 clue son )p
I offered to explain it if you wanted to humble yourself and stop being such a douchebag, but you declined. If you'd still like to admit you don't know what you're talking about and actually learn something, I'll still tell you the answer to my first question with the wellhead as well as let you know how fracing is actually accomplished.

BTW, what are you trying to prove with your first picture? All you've posted is a manifold that again, doesn't have anything to do with actually mixing or pumping fluid.

[AlphaWolf24]

Nope, once again you're wrong.


You told OP a wellhead machine manages to accomplish the frac singlehandedly! When it has nothing to do with pumping the job! You're not simplifying, you're lying through your teeth.


I offered to explain it if you wanted to humble yourself and stop being such a douchebag, but you declined. If you'd still like to admit you don't know what you're talking about and actually learn something, I'll still tell you the answer to my first question with the wellhead as well as let you know how fracing is actually accomplished.


no your wrong!

(phew that was EZ)

explain then....you claim to know so much...back it up...otherwise you give nothing.

recap : I tried to explain it in basic terms...(of course some technical aspects were overshadowed ...otherwise my explanation is 98% correct)

you full of hot AIR...



next

[shlver]

no your wrong!

(phew that was EZ)

explain then....you claim to know so much...back it up...otherwise you give nothing.

recap : I tried to explain it in basic terms...(of course some technical aspects were overshadowed ...otherwise my explanation is 98% correct)

you full of hot AIR...



next
No, your explanation of fracking covered everything other than maybe 5% of the actual fracking process.

[johndeeregreen]

recap : I tried to explain it in basic terms...(of course some technical aspects were overshadowed ...otherwise my explanation is 98% correct)

You really need to understand one thing: a wellhead doesn't pump or mix fluid. That's where you're wrong. And it's not just "simplifying," it's actually 100% factually incorrect.

Since you're so hot on this wellhead issue:

First off, a frac wellhead is put on so they can shut the well in, flow it back upon completion, give the treating line somewhere to attach to, etc. That's all it is. Generally they are rated to certain pressures (as well as the casing) which will in turn be your max pressure for the job. Those ports in the original picture are where your standing iron will attach from your ground manifold & main surface treating line. Not a blowoff valve. So you understand, your wellhead has nothing to do with the pumping. You condensed what it takes an entire spread of trailer-mounted equipment into one simple wellhead tool, which is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Actually fracing: of course every job differs, but in general:

You'll start at your water tanks & manifold. You'll have a chemical addition unit that will attach its manifold to the water tanks via hoses. It takes on water and pre-mixes the fluid with the chemicals at a concentration that the job calls for.

Fluid is then transferred via hose to another unit called a blender. Most companies blender setups vary, but the gist of it is that they take in fluid in one side from the chem van, while taking on sand from the sand units, mix it via a tub, and then it exits the other side of the blender, and transferred via hoses to horsepowers (pumps).

The fluid is taken on through the suction side of the pump, then discharged through high pressure iron treating lines that eventually connect to the wellhead, and your fluid goes downhole.

Now THAT is the Barney version of fracturing. Not "throw your wellhead on adn wammo."

[AlphaWolf24]

This is like if I said I knew more about f*cking plants than you.

Hey Deuce, photosynthesis is a myth. Plants survive on electricity.

That is what this guy is doing right now.


no ....what I'm doing is explaining how we get electricity..

fuel heats water>>>Water makes steam>>>>pressurized steam flows through pipe>>>steam pushes turbine>>>Turbine creates Amp...

...then you come and open your *** dumpster saying .."it's not a pipe..the steam flows through something else..but I wont tell you.......jeez you know nothing"


:lol we all laughing at you kid...

[shlver]

no ....what I'm doing is explaining how we get electricity..

fuel heats water>>>Water makes steam>>>>pressurized steam flows through pipe>>>steam pushes turbine>>>Turbine creates Amp...

...then you come and open your *** dumpster saying .."it's not a pipe..the steam flows through something else..but I wont tell you.......jeez you know nothing"


:lol we all laughing at you kid...
Water makes steam. :biggums:

[johndeeregreen]

You keep acting like I'm just elaborating on something you said. You said a wellhead does the frac. I'm not nitpicking; this is something you are 100% wrong about. A wellhead has zero to do with the pumping of a job.

[rufuspaul]

EDIT: If, after the previous post, you're still inclined to think you know better than me, please describe the circled part of the wellhead and it's function, as it relates to the fracturing process.

http://oi50.tinypic.com/14mdn7.jpg


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/teletubby1.jpg

[Nanners]

The important that I am noticing in this thread is that the environmental effects of fracing in the US are unknown and that somehow the burden of proof has been placed on the public/scientific community to back their claims with conclusive statistical analysis. That seems pretty backwards to me. Mining companies should have the burden of proving that their techniques are safe before causing irreversible damage. Currently, they will just do their thing until someone proves it is unsafe and then walk away with a pile of cash. This would be like the pharmacuetical industry releasing medication into the market and then saying "We will stop selling it once someone shows conclusive proof that our product is dangerous."

I cannot agree more. I think that when it comes to things like fracking, which might have unknown side effects that could negative effect thousands of people, the burden of proof should not be on the innocent civilians to prove that they are getting harmed.

One of the things they teach you in statistics is the importance of avoiding type II error above all else (false negatives). Type II errors are also the basis of the precautionary principle, something any scientist should know and follow (hawker is a fa66ot). In this country, industry is essentially founded around accepting the risk of type II errors.

Ever heard of a superfund site? The vast majority of superfund sites are old businesses that used really dirty processes to make a product. These companies generally make vast profits over a 10-20 years, and then go out of business (usually bankrupt). Once the company goes bankrupt, the taxpayer is basically on the hook for cleaning up after them. This exact situation has already happened hundreds of times all around this country, and this is what will happen again once these frackers are forced to shut down. They will walk away with their profits, they will let their companies go out of business or bankrupt, and they will let all of the innocent civilians with cancer or undrinkable well water sit on shit creek without a paddle.

[AlphaWolf24]

johndeeregreen]

First off, a frac wellhead is put on so they can shut the well in, flow it back upon completion, give the treating line somewhere to attach to, etc. That's all it is. Generally they are rated to certain pressures (as well as the casing) which will in turn be your max pressure for the job. Those ports in the original picture are where your standing iron will attach from your ground manifold & main surface treating line. Not a blowoff valve. So you understand, your wellhead has nothing to do with the pumping. You condensed what it takes an entire spread of trailer-mounted equipment into one simple wellhead tool, which is as ignorant as it is wrong.



"the well head is fitted with a machine that injects a mixture of Water and Chemicals "..this is what I said...and it pretty much sums up what you said in basic terms..(yes the well head does not mix/or create pressure...but come on...)..then I showed a pic.

http://www.theintelligencer.net/photos/news/md/566273_1.jpg






Actually fracing: of course every job differs, but in general:

You'll start at your water tank & manifold. You'll have a chemical addition unit that will attach its manifold to the water tanks via hoses. It takes on water and pre-mixes the fluid with the chemicals at a concentration that the job calls for.

Fluid is then transferred via hose to another unit called a blender. Most companies blender setups vary, but the gist of it is that they take in fluid in one side from the chem van, while taking on sand from the sand units, mix it via a tub, and then it exits the other side of the blender, and transferred via hoses to horsepowers (pumps).

The fluid is taken on through the suction side of the pump, then discharged through high pressure iron treating lines that eventually connect to the wellhead, and your fluid goes downhole.

Now THAT is the Barney version of fracturing. Not "throw your wellhead on adn wammo.

OMG!..really...a paragraph about blending....my version was so much better.






if you want to go you route...


1.Political Level...how to win minds on such a sensitive area how to find investors


2.regulatory level...laws and guidlines must first be overviewed to see where EOR can safely be operated

3. Land/Geo...where can we operate and can we get permission to recover..where is the Fossil Fuel?

4.Law and Permits must be approved to go ahead and start the recovery

5. Equipment set up and installation/exporting recovery to treatment facility/plant

6. work force 24hr monitoring of equipment

7.hiring some random Rock to guard the tank where water is mixed with chemicals....this Rock is full of BS and will act like he knows what he is doing...when in reality he is just a secirity guard over a water tank.

[AlphaWolf24]

Water makes steam. :biggums:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

[Nanners]

JDG and Alpha: if yall really want to ruin this thread arguing semantics and inconsequential bullshit, you should really include primetime.

[shlver]

I cannot agree more. I think that when it comes to things like fracking, which might have unknown side effects that could negative effect thousands of people, the burden of proof should not be on the innocent civilians to prove that they are getting harmed.
Sure, and so far, those claiming harm haven't came up with any compelling evidence while fracking has come up with scientific evidence that it is completely safe.


One of the things they teach you in statistics is the importance of avoiding type II error above all else (false negatives). Type II errors are also the basis of the precautionary principle, something any scientist should know and follow (hawker is a fa66ot). In this country, industry is essentially founded around accepting the risk of type II errors.
No, which error to avoid is completely situational. However, in quality control and industry, it is always better to avoid type 2 error. In reality, proving something is completely safe is unrealistic and impossible. However if you have an alpha of a fraction of a percent, the possible committing of a type 1 error is economically, statistically, and scientifically the most retarded and ill conceived thing to do just because of a tiny possibility of a type 2 error being made.
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fracking-requires-minimum-distance-kilometers.html

[Nanners]

Sure, and so far, those claiming harm haven't came up with any compelling evidence while fracking has come up with scientific evidence that it is completely safe.

from what i hear, the jury is still out on the safety of fracking. also, when was the last time industry discovered that their processes were harming human health and decided to voluntarily stop??



No, which error to avoid is completely situational. However, in quality control and industry, it is always better to avoid type 2 error. In reality, proving something is completely safe is unrealistic and impossible. However if you have an alpha of a fraction of a percent, the possible committing of a type 1 error is economically, statistically, and scientifically the most retarded and ill conceived thing to do just because of a tiny possibility of a type 2 error being made.
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fracking-requires-minimum-distance-kilometers.html

Yes I was unclear in my post and there are situations where type 1 is worse than type 2. I was referring to situations that are life or death, where human health is involved. when there is a chance that little kids are getting cancer, you avoid type 2.

[shlver]

from what i hear, the jury is still out on the safety of fracking. also, when was the last time industry discovered that their processes were harming human health and decided to voluntarily stop??



Yes I was unclear in my post and there are situations where type 1 is worse than type 2. I was referring to situations that are life or death, where human health is involved.
Yeah because like I said, you can't prove anything is safe. However, almost every study that comes out indicates that fracking, by itself, does not contaminate.
Stop pulling stuff out of thin air and link actual data and studies.

[Nanners]

Yeah because like I said, you can't prove anything is safe. However, almost every study that comes out indicates that fracking, by itself, does not contaminate.

Not the one that Deuce linked on the first page of this thread.

[shlver]

Not the one that Deuce linked on the first page of this thread.
No causal link, only correlation. Disjointed at that.

[Nanners]

No causal link, only correlation. Disjointed at that.


fracing has only become really popular the past few years. human health effects can take a long time to develop. ground water movement is slow and difficult to map. a scientific study takes years, and fracking has not been occuring on a large scale for very long. combine all of those facts, and it is no suprise that nobody can prove the risks of fracing one way or another.

also, due to the nature of fracing and other studies that attempt to understand how things work in the real world, it can be difficult for studies to be anything more than correlative. its like doing studies on the health effects of air quality, you cant really test everything in a laboratory.


i personally think it is very likely that fracing does not harm human health, but that is just my hunch. i understand that i dont really know the risk, and that probably nobody truly knows the risk, and thats why i think we need to exercise extreme caution. if hypothetically, fracing does harm human health, what are you going to say to some guy who has leukemia in 10 years from now because he had the misfortune of growing up next door to a fracing operation?

[shlver]

fracing has only become really popular the past few years. human health effects can take a long time to develop. ground water movement is slow and difficult to map. a scientific study takes years, and fracking has not been occuring on a large scale for very long. combine all of those facts, and it is no suprise that nobody can prove the risks of fracing one way or another.

also, due to the nature of fracing and other studies that attempt to understand how things work in the real world, it can be difficult for studies to be anything more than correlative. its like doing studies on the health effects of air quality, you cant really test everything in a laboratory.


i personally think it is very likely that fracing does not harm human health, but that is just my hunch. i understand that i dont really know the risk, and that probably nobody truly knows the risk, and thats why i think we need to exercise extreme caution. if hypothetically, fracing does harm human health, what are you going to say to some guy who has leukemia in 10 years from now because he had the misfortune of growing up next door to a fracing operation?
Sure, caution does have to be taken and many academic and the EPA have been doing studies and research into the effects of fracking. Most if not all studies indicate, including the one Deuce posted, that no contamination has been directly from the process of hydraulic fracturing.
As for the emotional gambit about the guy who got leukemia hypothetically, I would wager money right now that it wasn't from fracking as in contamination from fracking liquids. I've already posted the physics and to reiterate, everything points to fracking being completely safe.

[tpols]

You really need to understand one thing: a wellhead doesn't pump or mix fluid. That's where you're wrong. And it's not just "simplifying," it's actually 100% factually incorrect.

Since you're so hot on this wellhead issue:

First off, a frac wellhead is put on so they can shut the well in, flow it back upon completion, give the treating line somewhere to attach to, etc. That's all it is. Generally they are rated to certain pressures (as well as the casing) which will in turn be your max pressure for the job. Those ports in the original picture are where your standing iron will attach from your ground manifold & main surface treating line. Not a blowoff valve. So you understand, your wellhead has nothing to do with the pumping. You condensed what it takes an entire spread of trailer-mounted equipment into one simple wellhead tool, which is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Actually fracing: of course every job differs, but in general:

You'll start at your water tanks & manifold. You'll have a chemical addition unit that will attach its manifold to the water tanks via hoses. It takes on water and pre-mixes the fluid with the chemicals at a concentration that the job calls for.

Fluid is then transferred via hose to another unit called a blender. Most companies blender setups vary, but the gist of it is that they take in fluid in one side from the chem van, while taking on sand from the sand units, mix it via a tub, and then it exits the other side of the blender, and transferred via hoses to horsepowers (pumps).

The fluid is taken on through the suction side of the pump, then discharged through high pressure iron treating lines that eventually connect to the wellhead, and your fluid goes downhole.

Now THAT is the Barney version of fracturing. Not "throw your wellhead on adn wammo."
This doesnt sound like the Barney version at all.:lol Sounds like what exactly technically happens.

[Nanners]

As for the emotional gambit about the guy who got leukemia hypothetically, I would wager money right now that it wasn't from fracking as in contamination from fracking liquids. I've already posted the physics and to reiterate, everything points to fracking being completely safe.

i only ask about cancer guy because this kind of situation has already happened many times in the past - industry claims their actions are safe, in reality not enough information is known and people get sick/die later.

[Nanners]

No causal link, only correlation. Disjointed at that.

do you dismiss studies on air pollution because they are correlative? correlation is almost always used for studies on pollution effects on a population level. its tough to come up with concrete information on this stuff other than acute toxicity (chronic toxicity is much more complicated). i would bet that approximately half of the human health policy decisions made by the US govt are based on correlative studies.

[shlver]

do you dismiss studies on air pollution because they are correlative? correlation is almost always used for studies on pollution effects on a population level, cant do much in a lab besides testing acute toxicity (fairly difficult to test chronic toxicity). i would bet that approximately half of the human health policy decisions made by the US govt are based on correlative studies.
No because the causation is obvious. Did you not read the study? Why do you try to apply blanket generalizations when I'm talking about a specific study? Stop reaching and make academic and logical conclusions please.

[johndeeregreen]

This doesnt sound like the Barney version at all.:lol Sounds like what exactly technically happens.
It is what happens, but it doesn't touch on how to attack different formations, what kind of mixes used for different fracs, different chems, different types of sand, different sand densities for zones, different types of pumps, variations in pump rates, pressures, different ways of isolating zones, for example, so it is still very much a laymen's guide to the fracturing process.

[Nanners]

No because the causation is obvious. Did you not read the study? Why do you try to apply blanket generalizations when I'm talking about a specific study? Stop reaching and make academic and logical conclusions please.

yeah i read the study.

here is a blanket generalization for you- you are a douche. good day sir

[tpols]

It is what happens, but it doesn't touch on how to attack different formations, what kind of mixes used for different fracs, different chems, different types of sand, different sand densities for zones, different types of pumps, variations in pump rates, pressures, different ways of isolating zones, for example, so it is still very much a laymen's guide to the fracturing process.
true, true.

[shlver]

yeah i read the study.

here is a blanket generalization for you- you are a douche. good day sir
:lol Too emotional to make objective points. Very apparent reaching for emotional gambits like children with cancer.

[Nanners]

:lol Too emotional to make objective points. Very apparent reaching for emotional gambits like children with cancer.

i made plenty of valid points, you just pick through my posts and find little shit to nit pick and think that somehow refutes everything i say. also, human health is an emotional thing, so you will have to forgive me for being human.

a lot of people only see the world through some black and white mindset that values dollars and cents. increasingly fewer people actually care about their fellow human beings, and dont feel right enriching themselves while they risk the health of their neighbors.

[AlphaWolf24]

This doesnt sound like the Barney version at all.:lol Sounds like what exactly technically happens.


this...



the poster went into a frenzy because every detail and weight of sand per oz. wasn't covered

[Balla_Status]

from what i hear, the jury is still out on the safety of fracking. also, when was the last time industry discovered that their processes were harming human health and decided to voluntarily stop??





Fracing has been going on since the 1940s. Not one incidence of water contamination.

The jury is only out to idiots who want nothing more to see oil and gas companies burn to flames because they run a good business and make a lot of money. These people have never seen a rig before in their life and make judgements based on yahoo! articles. They have no idea how the fracing process works nor the science and geology behind it.

The industry has come out with PLENTY of evidence in their favor but it doesn't make the media. And of course it doesn't, nobody wants to read that. And even if they did, what's their response, "Of course they're going to say that. They make all the money."

People who use the argument of setting their water faucets on fire obviously missed the lesson in 11th grade english class on logical fallacies. Correlation =/= causation and it's pathetic to see so called "scientists" using this as a basis for their argument.

Carry on driving cars powered by oil and heat your homes powered by natural gas.

[shlver]

i made plenty of valid points, you just pick through my posts and find little shit to nit pick and think that somehow refutes everything i say. also, human health is an emotional thing, so you will have to forgive me for being human.

a lot of people only see the world through some black and white mindset that values dollars and cents. increasingly fewer people actually care about their fellow human beings, and dont feel right enriching themselves while they risk the health of their neighbors.
What if kids get cancer or what would you say if fracking does cause harm and causes leukemia aren't valid points. :lol

[Nanners]

Fracing has been going on since the 1940s. Not one incidence of water contamination.

The jury is only out to idiots who want nothing more to see oil and gas companies burn to flames because they run a good business and make a lot of money. These people have never seen a rig before in their life and make judgements based on yahoo! articles. They have no idea how the fracing process works nor the science and geology behind it.

The industry has come out with PLENTY of evidence in their favor but it doesn't make the media. And of course it doesn't, nobody wants to read that. And even if they did, what's their response, "Of course they're going to say that. They make all the money."

People who use the argument of setting their water faucets on fire obviously missed the lesson in 11th grade english class on logical fallacies. Correlation =/= causation and it's pathetic to see so called "scientists" using this as a basis for their argument.

Carry on driving cars powered by oil and heat your homes powered by natural gas.

your post is 100% misleading bullshit. yes, fracing has been around since the 1940s, but only recently has been used on a large scale accross the entire country. as far as the science is concerned, the jury is still out and we both know it, you can claim its safe based on your industry science (lol), see how many people believe you. your industry has a looooong history of putting human and ecosystem health at the bottom of the priority list, but this time it is different, right?

i dont know whether it is tragic or downright hilarious that you are in here talking like you are some kind of white knight whose sole mission in life is making sure peoples cars move and houses stay warm. like you are doing some giant favor to society or something... pretty hilarious actually. guess what, the world would still turn even if your dumb selfish ass was not pumping gas out of the ground.

[Nanners]

What if kids get cancer or what would you say if fracking does cause harm and causes leukemia aren't valid points. :lol

asking "what if fracking causes human harm" is not a valid question for a discussion on fracking? whatever guy :oldlol:

[shlver]

asking "what if fracking causes human harm" is not a valid question for a discussion on fracking? whatever guy :oldlol:
Once again, most if not all studies has shown that fracking does not contaminate groundwater. Human health has many complex inputs and no science has supported the anecdotal accounts of humans people being harmed from fracking. Every post you go back and forth saying "the industry harms people" to "the jury is still out" and try to insert emotion instead of scientific objectivity.

[Jailblazers7]

Carry on driving cars powered by oil and heat your homes powered by natural gas.

You really need to stop saying stuff like this sentence. No one is saying oil/gas = bad. People are concerned that the extraction of those resources is being done without significant harm to the environment and other resources. Consumers criticizing firms and demanding full information is something your boy Ron Paul is all for so it's hypocritical for you to dismiss that process when it is directed toward your industry.

I'm sure you could correct a lot of the misinformation that is present in the media but you are too busy enhancing you're douchebag attitude to talk about the topic frankly (like JDG does).

[Balla_Status]

your post is 100% misleading bullshit. yes, fracing has been around since the 1940s, but only recently has been used on a large scale accross the entire country. as far as the science is concerned, the jury is still out and we both know it, you can claim its safe based on your industry science (lol), see how many people believe you. your industry has a looooong history of putting human and ecosystem health at the bottom of the priority list, but this time it is different, right?

i dont know whether it is tragic or downright hilarious that you are in here talking like you are some kind of white knight whose sole mission in life is making sure peoples cars move and houses stay warm. like you are doing some giant favor to society or something... pretty hilarious actually. guess what, the world would still turn even if your dumb selfish ass was not pumping gas out of the ground.

How is the jury out? Because you say it is? It's been proven time and time again that it's safe. It's call geology, rock mechanics and frac mechanics. Learn about it sometime. You say the burden of proof is on the industry. Guess what? They've already proven that it's safe and you will continue to deny, deny, deny. It's fruitless for people like you. It's already been proven in this very thread that it's safe.

People light their water faucets on fire and the first thing they blame is the oil and gas companies. Why? Because it's easy to.

Fracing is going to be here awhile and will continue to be safe. Deal with it.

Oh, and it's not about me being some white knight. It's about people bitching about oil and gas companies yet still using oil and gas. How do you think Josh Fox got to Wyoming and Colorado to make his film? Walking?

People can bitch all they want but at the end of the day they don't have the balls to live up to their convictions. Now that's hilarious.

[Balla_Status]

You really need to stop saying stuff like this sentence. No one is saying oil/gas = bad. People are concerned that the extraction of those resources is being done without significant harm to the environment and other resources. Consumers criticizing firms and demanding full information is something your boy Ron Paul is all for so it's hypocritical for you to dismiss that process when it is directed toward your industry.

I'm sure you could correct a lot of the misinformation that is present in the media but you are too busy enhancing you're douchebag attitude to talk about the topic frankly (like JDG does).

I'll stop being a douchebag when people stop being idiots. Fair? And Nanners is a massive douche as well. Call his ass out as well.

The companies are not hiding information. People just refuse to believe the facts.

[Balla_Status]

Once again, most if not all studies has shown that fracking does not contaminate groundwater. Human health has many complex inputs and no science has supported the anecdotal accounts of humans people being harmed from fracking. Every post you go back and forth saying "the industry harms people" to "the jury is still out" and try to insert emotion instead of scientific objectivity.

Exactly. The guy is an idiot.

[Jailblazers7]

True, Nanners is sensationalizing the topic but I guess his posts are just less grating to me than yours can be sometimes, especially knowing your intelligence and education. I should be more objective and fair about it (and I try to be) but I'm only human so my own bias is obviously going to show through in my posts.

You could actually add to the topic for once instead of saying, "If you use gas, then shut up" or "BRB I have to go make a ton of money."

[Nanners]

blah blah blah, the most profitable industry in the world has supposedly "proven" that their proceses are completely safe. if you want to believe the story from the billion dollar industry and pimple face turdball hawker, you would do well ignore all of the times in the past that people like him have said "i promise it is completely safe" and then something like this (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/01/09/an-oily-case-chevrons-never-ending-record-breaking-lawsuit-in-ecuador/) or this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-confirms-massive-oil-pollution-niger-delta-2011-08-04) happens. i just wonder how these people sleep at night (probably on sheets made of silk and indian tears)



the oil industry says its safe, why not drill holes thousands of feet underwater??


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/29/1301406496165/BP-Deepwater-Horizon-005.jpg

the next day

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.178431!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

"good news america, we have the oil spill under control. you know we love the environment, cause i have a green logo on my helmet. " (hawker wears a helmet too)


a few months later

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/449675main_gulf-spill-670.jpg

[shlver]

blah blah blah, the most profitable industry in the world has supposedly "proven" that their proceses are completely safe. if you want to believe the story from the billion dollar industry and pimple face turdball hawker, you would do well ignore all of the times in the past that people like him have said "i promise it is completely safe" and then do something like this (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/01/09/an-oily-case-chevrons-never-ending-record-breaking-lawsuit-in-ecuador/) or this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-confirms-massive-oil-pollution-niger-delta-2011-08-04). i just wonder how these people sleep at night (probably on sheets made of silk and indian tears)



the oil industry says its safe, why not drill holes thousands of feet underwater??


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/29/1301406496165/BP-Deepwater-Horizon-005.jpg

the next day

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.178431!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

"good news america, we have the oil spill under control. you know we love the environment, cause i have a green logo on my helmet. " (hawker wears a helmet too)


a few months later

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/449675main_gulf-spill-670.jpg
You're living in a fantasy world if you expect absolute perfection for something to be "safe." When it fails your absurd criterion for safety, you call it bad and the industry is out to make money, blah blah blah. Completely unreasonable. What's reasonable is to do a cost benefit analysis and what a reasonable failure rate should be. How many of these spills do you see happening? once every one or two decades? That is high reliability and perfectly acceptable of a risk for something that is such a critical necessity for modern energy needs.
A data point is not a trend.

[Nanners]

You're living in a fantasy world if you expect absolute perfection for something to be "safe." When it fails your absurd criterion for safety, you call it bad and the industry is out to make money, blah blah blah. Completely unreasonable. What's reasonable is to do a cost benefit analysis and what a reasonable failure rate should be. How many of these spills do you see happening? once every one or two decades? That is high reliability and perfectly acceptable of a risk for something that is such a critical necessity for modern energy needs.


maybe i am living in a fantasy world. also, i definitely do sensationalize things, probably because i think this stuff is extremely important and i view it in real world terms, not in terms of numbers and money.

in my fantasy world, the vast range of impacts of a once in a decade spill cant characterized by numbers and plugged into some cost benefit analysis. nobody can put a dollar value on the extinction of a fish species.

yeah modern energy needs are crazy. in my fantasy world, instead of drilling holes in the ground and using a variety of potentially harmful processes to access a nonrenewable energy source, we would be collectively focused on reducing usage and finding sources of renewable energy, but again thats just me and my fantasy world (and another discussion entirely)


in my fantasy world, i think that we should be extremely cautious when we are doing anything that could cause irreversible changes to this planet. we all share this giant spaceship called earth, and we dont get any "do overs" if things go horribly wrong. additionally, if things do go wrong we arent just screwing over our neighbors, but we are screwing over future generations. in my fantasy world, i would leave a clean and beautiful planet for my kids and future generations of my family to inherit, because in my fantasy world i want my grandkids to be able to eat louisiana shrimp or drink groundwater out of pennsylvania and do all of the other things that i was able to do.



A data point is not a trend.

tell that to people in the niger river delta.

[johndeeregreen]

Said it once and I'll say it again, comparing the safety of offshore drilling to fracturing is absolutely laughable.

[Nanners]

Said it once and I'll say it again, comparing the safety of offshore drilling to fracturing is absolutely laughable.

you can say it again and again if you want.

ill be over here still not giving a fvck about what you say. shouldnt you be using your intellect to argue with alpha about semantics or the function of the little ball on the top of a well? :oldlol:

[shlver]

maybe i am living in a fantasy world. also, i definitely do sensationalize things, probably because i think this stuff is extremely important and i view it in real world terms, not in terms of numbers and money.

in my fantasy world, the vast range of impacts of a once in a decade spill cant characterized by numbers and plugged into some cost benefit analysis. nobody can put a dollar value on the extinction of a fish species.

yeah modern energy needs are crazy. in my fantasy world, instead of drilling holes in the ground and using a variety of potentially harmful processes to access a nonrenewable energy source, we would be collectively focused on reducing usage and finding sources of renewable energy, but again thats just me and my fantasy world.


in my fantasy world, i think that we should be extremely cautious when we are doing anything that could cause irreversible changes to this planet. we all share this giant spaceship called earth, and we dont get any "do overs" if things go horribly wrong. additionally, if things do go wrong we arent just screwing over our neighbors, but we are screwing over future generations. in my fantasy world, i would leave a clean and beautiful planet for my kids and future generations of my family to inherit, because in my fantasy world i want my grandkids to be able to eat louisiana shrimp or drink groundwater out of pennsylvania and do all of the other things that i was able to do.




tell that to people in the niger river delta.
I agree with you, but I don't think any politician will put forth the effort into the energy crisis and public climate will not be conducive to complete overhaul in the next decade or two.
-Double nuclear power plant capacity(something card-stacking environmentalists are against) and decommission coal plants unless required technology significantly reduces carbon emissions.
-Heavy funding of renewable energy research.
-Heavy research into fusion
-Impose heavy regulations on large pollution contributors.
-Subsidize personal renewable energy sources.(roof solar panels, etc.)
-Implement gas/oil tax to fund said research, construction of nuke plants, etc.
-Massive implementation of solar solutions, secondary solutions(hydrogen cells), etc. and electrical grid upgrades.
-Begin phase out of fossil fuel run cars, etc.
All of this will take decades, trillions of dollars, and necessary political and public motivation. As of right now, it won't happen until continual problems arise that are felt by the general public which can be artificially created by increasing gas prices like the 1970's oil crisis. Do you think the public will like this? No. As of right now, fossil fuel is necessary for our energy needs.

[johndeeregreen]

you can say it again and again if you want.

ill be over here still not giving a fvck about what you say. shouldnt you be using your intellect to argue with alpha about semantics or the function of the little ball on the top of a well? :oldlol:
:confusedshrug:

OK. I guess it furthers your argument against fracturing better when you talk about something completely unrelated and infinitely more hazardous.

[Nanners]

:confusedshrug:

OK. I guess it furthers your argument against fracturing better when you talk about something completely unrelated and infinitely more hazardous.

i dont know if you misunderstood my post or what (i know my rants are convoluted and confusing, sorry about that), but i was not comparing the hazards of fracing and offshore drilling.

i was pointing out the overall pattern of recklessness and disregard for humans/environment within your industry, which is why i also posted links about the niger river delta and the situation in ecuador.

[shlver]

i dont know if you misunderstood my post or what (i know my rants are convoluted and confusing, sorry about that), but i was not comparing the hazards of fracing and offshore drilling.

i was pointing out the overall pattern of recklessness and disregard for humans/environment within your industry, which is why i also posted links about the niger river delta and the situation in ecuador.
I don't even know why I'm engaging in a debate about this. It is completely unrelated and appeals to specific cases that have nothing to do with the EPA or USA regulations, or even the safety of fracking. You've derailed this thread harder than JDG did with his argument with alpha.

[vinsane01]

Interesting thread. A couple of questions regarding presumed health hazards associated with this whole process of releasing and gathering petroleum/natural gas...

Are there any similar complaints at places where there isnt any near induced hydraulic fracturing taking place?

And to places near induced hydraulic fracturing areas, do people consistently have the same problem or are the evidence of leaking (regardless of presumed causation) scanty at best, meaning only limited to only a few housing establishments?

I've read the explanations posted and i agree that based on the evidence available, that it's hard to point fingers at the industry alleging negligence. But then again, if (emphasize on the IF, so as not to incite anger :D ) the correlation is overwhelming we might want to think twice.

[RedBlackAttack]

The thing that really bothers me about shale and hydraulic fracturing is that it is virtually impossible to track the contamination because drillers refuse to disclose the chemicals being used during the fracturing process.

When dealing with matters of public health, there should be absolute transparency. This just makes it look as though they have something to hide and, thus, people (rightfully) are skeptical about the whole process.

[rufuspaul]

The thing that really bothers me about shale and hydraulic fracturing is that it is virtually impossible to track the contamination because drillers refuse to disclose the chemicals being used during the fracturing process.

When dealing with matters of public health, there should be absolute transparency. This just makes it look as though they have something to hide and, thus, people (rightfully) are skeptical about the whole process.


Agreed.

[falc39]

The thing that really bothers me about shale and hydraulic fracturing is that it is virtually impossible to track the contamination because drillers refuse to disclose the chemicals being used during the fracturing process.

When dealing with matters of public health, there should be absolute transparency. This just makes it look as though they have something to hide and, thus, people (rightfully) are skeptical about the whole process.

I can't link at the moment but Google "fracfocus". It's a chemical disclosure website where you can search a bunch of individual wells and download chems used. You have to rename file to pdf.

[AlphaWolf24]

The thing that really bothers me about shale and hydraulic fracturing is that it is virtually impossible to track the contamination because drillers refuse to disclose the chemicals being used during the fracturing process.

When dealing with matters of public health, there should be absolute transparency. This just makes it look as though they have something to hide and, thus, people (rightfully) are skeptical about the whole process.


http://fracfocus.org/

[AlphaWolf24]

blah blah blah, the most profitable industry in the world has supposedly "proven" that their proceses are completely safe. if you want to believe the story from the billion dollar industry and pimple face turdball hawker, you would do well ignore all of the times in the past that people like him have said "i promise it is completely safe" and then something like this (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/01/09/an-oily-case-chevrons-never-ending-record-breaking-lawsuit-in-ecuador/) or this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-confirms-massive-oil-pollution-niger-delta-2011-08-04) happens. i just wonder how these people sleep at night (probably on sheets made of silk and indian tears)



the oil industry says its safe, why not drill holes thousands of feet underwater??


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/29/1301406496165/BP-Deepwater-Horizon-005.jpg

the next day

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.178431!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

"good news america, we have the oil spill under control. you know we love the environment, cause i have a green logo on my helmet. " (hawker wears a helmet too)


a few months later

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/449675main_gulf-spill-670.jpg


- poster is typing on his computer(petroleum based)...using the webz (thanks to oil)..prolly drives his car to work after eating all his food made possible by Fossil Fuels..



- unless you are willing to back and live like the stone ages....then quit whining..

- yes there have been some major spills...but considering how well we live in modern day thanks to Fossil Fuel.....it seems pretty fair to me.


average plumber today lives better then the King of england 400 years ago...all thanks to the ORecovery/Fossil Fuel



your pettiness is sad.

[Nanners]

- poster is typing on his computer(petroleum based)...using the webz (thanks to oil)..prolly drives his car to work after eating all his food made possible by Fossil Fuels..



- unless you are willing to back and live like the stone ages....then quit whining..

- yes there have been some major spills...but considering how well we live in modern day thanks to Fossil Fuel.....it seems pretty fair to me.


average plumber today lives better then the King of england 400 years ago...all thanks to the ORecovery/Fossil Fuel



great argument lieutenant shithead

we live in a society that is built around the consumption of fossil fuels, so what? how does that excuse reckless behavior? you really think we should just sit back silently and let these oil companies become the most profitable companies in human history while they externalize the cost of doing business on to innocent civilians and the environment?

yeah i have a car, that means i am not allowed to criticize gas companies?

[Legend of Josh]

great argument lieutenant shithead

we live in a society that is built around the consumption of fossil fuels, so what? how does that excuse reckless behavior? you really think we should just sit back silently and let these oil companies become the most profitable companies in human history while they externalize the cost of doing business on to innocent civilians and the environment?

yeah i have a car, that means i am not allowed to criticize gas companies?

We haven't really ever gotten along much. You really come off like an arrogant "Hey look at me, I been to college and I am educated and I am highly intelligent!" type of asshole. You really do, and I don't know if you see yourself from an outside perspective or not, but you really need to try that sometime. It would do you a world of good. In fact, I needed a good dose of reality in that sense awhile back, and it helped me emphatically.

Let's get back to you. I can see it already... you'll just reply with some rolling emoticon and say "you of all people" etc.

Let the focus here be on you, however. You are always being negative and belittling someone else. You are a left-winged think your sheet don't stink wreck scumbag who honestly thinks you are one of the "progressive" ones who is helping advance society yet you obviously fail to realize you're part of the problem, and not the solution.

Grow the fu*k up. Respect others, and come to the realization that YOU are NOT all that you think you are. Please. You're more of a self-righteous hippy than my own brother in the flesh, and makes me quite sick. Christ dude, just stop.

[Nanners]

We haven't really ever gotten along much. You really come off like an arrogant "Hey look at me, I been to college and I am educated and I am highly intelligent!" type of asshole. You really do, and I don't if you see yourself from an outside perspective or not, but you really need to try that sometime. It would do you a world of good. In fact, I needed a good dose of reality in that sense awhile back, and it helped me emphatically.

Let's get back to you. I can see it already... you'll just reply with some rolling emoticon and say "you of all people" etc.

Let the focus here be on you, however. You are always being negative and belittling someone else. You are a left-winged think your sheet don't stink wreck scumbag who honestly thinks you are one of the "progressive" ones who is helping advance society yet you obviously fail to realize you're part of the problem, and not the solution.

Grow the fu*k up. Respect others, and come to the realization that YOU are NOT all that you think you are. Please. You're more of a self-righteous hippy than my own brother in the flesh, and makes me quite sick. Christ dude, just stop.


you of all people :roll:

[Legend of Josh]

you of all people :roll:

:oldlol:

[Legend of Josh]

At least you can take a joke. Now, if only you could take yourself? Seriously though, come up off that self-righteous "me the sheet" ... "up in them mentals" dung garbage. You're better than that. You need to knock yourself down a tier or two. Not that anyone else had you up in any such placing anyway. I'm just saying for yourself. It'd be pretty cool and surprising to see other posters chime in and say "hey now buddy, wait a minute, Nanners is a fu*king genius!" He's ahead of his time! He's someone I would follow, trust, and if in a power position running for office, he's got my vote!

So please manz... just ease up and stop having such a wanna-be strong and influential voice in so many subjects, topics, etc where you actually just simply don't. That would cool; thanks.

[Nanners]

At least you can take a joke. Now, if only you could take yourself? Seriously though, come up off that self-righteous "me the sheet" ... "up in them mentals" dung garbage. You're better than that. You need to knock yourself down a tier or two. Not that anyone else had you up in any such placing anyway. I'm just saying for yourself. It'd be pretty cool and surprising to see other posters chime in and say "hey now buddy, wait a minute, Nanners is a fu*king genius!" He's ahead of his time! He's someone I would follow, trust, and if in a power position running for office, he's got my vote!

in case it is not already abundantly clear, I DONT GIVE A FVCK what other posters think about me.

people can say i am an idiot, people can say i am a genius, people can say i am arrogant, people can say i am caring... i really just dont give a fvck what people say about the poster known as nanners. i didnt sign up here to win some internet popularity contest, i signed up to talk about basketball and other shit.



So please manz... just ease up and stop having such a wanna-be strong and influential voice in so many subjects, topics, etc where you actually just simply don't. That would cool; thanks.

you dont know shit about me. i have a degree in biology and i get paid to do work related to the environment. i think the reason my posts are so incendiary on this topic is because i actually care deeply about this kind of shit. i am truly concerned that my grandchildren wont have a clean place to live, so i am gonna use whatever voice i want when assholes want to destroy my planet so they can become billionaires.

[Legend of Josh]

in case it is not already abundantly clear, I DONT GIVE A FVCK what other posters think about me.

people can say i am an idiot, people can say i am a genius, people can say i am arrogant, people can say i am caring... i really just dont give a fvck what people say about the poster known as nanners. i didnt sign up here to win some internet popularity contest, i signed up to talk about basketball and other shit.



you dont know shit about me. i have a degree in biology and i get paid to do work related to the environment. i think the reason my posts are so incendiary on this topic is because i actually care deeply about this kind of shit. i am truly concerned that my grandchildren wont have a clean place to live, so i am gonna use whatever voice i want when assholes want to destroy my planet so they can become billionaires.


You don't give a fu*k... what a crock of shit. We all do. Stop pretending you dont. Otherwise, a poster would never use a message board. My gawd dude, do you realize how fu*king moronic and ignorant you sound?

You post here to put yourself in a higher light than you are in RL, and you DO CARE what others think about you.

Just STFU. What a liar and extreme fraud YOU are. Look at yourself in the mirror and say "I don't care what other posters think of me" three times... and I bet you the Candy Man will appear behind you and stick his hook up your corny white ass for being a jackass lying overestimating your own self cawk sucker.

You make me sick.

[Nanners]

You don't give a fu*k... what a crock of shit. We all do. Stop pretending you dont. Otherwise, a poster would never use a message board. My gawd dude, do you realize how fu*king moronic and ignorant you sound?

You post here to put yourself in a higher light than you are in RL, and you DO CARE what others think about you.

Just STFU. What a liar and extreme fraud YOU are. Look at yourself in the mirror and say "I don't care what other posters think of me" three times... and I bet you the Candy Man will appear behind you and stick his hook up your corny white ass for being a jackass lying overestimating your own self cawk sucker.

You make me sick.

you of all people :roll:

your armchair psychology is almost as funny as the idea of "hawker the white knight"

[Legend of Josh]

you of all people :roll:

:roll:

[johndeeregreen]

Agreed.
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Now if you're asking them to disclose exact mixes and concentrations that they use to create proprietary gels, I'm sure even you can understand why companies would be reluctant to do so. Halliburton's site is actually pretty thorough though.

[AlphaWolf24]

great argument lieutenant shithead

we live in a society that is built around the consumption of fossil fuels, so what? how does that excuse reckless behavior? you really think we should just sit back silently and let these oil companies become the most profitable companies in human history while they externalize the cost of doing business on to innocent civilians and the environment?

yeah i have a car, that means i am not allowed to criticize gas companies?


- no we live in a society that is SPOILED from what Fossil Fuels gives us..

- like I said..unless you want to live like a 3rd world country....shut your *** Dumpster...and play the game.

- you live in the most spoiled era of mankind....go anywhere and eat anything you want....have every need at your fingertips.(becuase of EOR)

- Unless you live in a cave and hunt your own food all you sound like is a Hypocrite.

- speaking from the U.S. standpoint ...we have the most structred regulations and the safest recovery methods....will thier be spills??...sure....but the benifits far outway the cons.

now drive your car...play on your computer...eat your Food...and feel comfortable in your home...

PS: get back in my pocket b****!






your welcome








next

[rufuspaul]

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Now if you're asking them to disclose exact mixes and concentrations that they use to create proprietary gels, I'm sure even you can understand why companies would be reluctant to do so. Halliburton's site is actually pretty thorough though.


http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html


Just in that one (WV) formulation there are 20 chemicals listed as hazardous.

[AlphaWolf24]

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html


Just in that one (WV) formulation there are 20 chemicals listed as hazardous.


there arejust as hazardous chems in toothpaste

[AlphaWolf24]

just hope your drinking water doesn't become flammable like it has in other fracked up areas. its definitely not a perfected science but $$$ and need for resources over-weigh's peoples safety these days.

basically they stick pipes or hoses into the ground and shoot chemicals into the earth to break shale rock which releases natural gas. which can get into the water systems, and has.


over 1 million wells have been HYdro Frac and never once has chemicals clearly shown to get into water sytsems.

the flaming sink was from natural occuring methane....wich occurred before anyone was EGR in Colorado


>>>Truthland the movie<<<<