Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2014 - 04:54pm PT
|
When there is that much money to be made there are no environmental impacts.
So we don't need to talk about how much water it takes to frack and we don't need to talk about where the wastewater goes or what it is; and we don't need to worry about any of those things . Everything is OK don't worry so much.
When we are done and doing something else really stupid for money you can clean up the mess.
Like at Hanford where the headwaters of the snake river are seriously jeopardized because the really smart scientists didn't worry about the waste.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 08:27am PT
|
Although I'm pro fracking (see my posts upthread) The study sounds like another grouping of bullshit to me The Larry. The oil companies should just release the list of chemicals in the stuff. I can understand why they don't, because people would go nuts. These comments from the vid seem obliquely related and of interest: "The study was partially funded by the oil companies" and the scientist proclaiming "if you drank the surfactants of fracking water it would make a good laxative"
He (the "scientist") say's that it's even got the same stuff that's in your toothpaste, so it's clearly even good for your teeth. We can all drink the laxative and relax now.
Not. High Traverse has it right about "transparency". But at the end of the day, the last 2 Secretary of Energy's have been super smart guys from academia, where they know there is no free lunch. If you stop all fracking, your environmental and economic costs will go through the roof. So yes, fracking sucks but it's much much better than the alternative. The alternative being the US being an net importer of oil products and thus politically beholden to Middle Eastern countries, and burning coal to make electricity instead of Natural gas thus polluting the sh#t out of our country.
Fracking, good stuff.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 08:30am PT
|
He didn't say that Bill. You did. Why are you misquoting what he said?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 08:40am PT
|
Word for word from the video Larry, I think I have accurately quoted it. If you want to check the video against my words, the toothpaste comment is made .42 seconds into the video by the "reporter". They cut to the scientist and at @.46ish he says the "If you drank the surfactant....." stuff. As he's speaking, the title underneath which they have written and is continuously displayed says: "CU RESEARCHERS FIND WHAT'S IN FRACKING FLUID" and underneath in the same caption "Report: no more dangerous than detergent".
Note the subtle manipulation? It's fracking FLUIDS they say, not Fracking CHEMICALS. It's as safe as products you use every day when you wash your dishes. Meh, you can brush your teeth with the stuff. No worries if it contaminates your aquifer and wells. Your clothes will be cleaner and you'll actually have cleaner teeth I guess. Note that they avoided running the list of "FLUIDS" they by any reputable scientists who are Doctors or health researcher specialists? In fact, they don't list any of the "FLUIDS"...err, chemicals. So I call bullsh#t. They all already know what's in that stuff. High Traverse says we need transparency: I agree. Put it out there.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
|
I just shake my head.
Flowback water is very temporary. The well spits it right back.
Produced formation water is different. These wells don't produce just oil and gas. They, like almost all oil and gas wells, also produce formation brine. It is separated at the surface and goes into separate tanks.
Two different things. Flowback water is the water that you injected during the frack. It is contaminated by formation water to some extent, but the pure stuff is the produced formation water, which can contain all kinds of stuff. The primary danger is from chloride contamination in the form of sodium chloride. Once you get chlorides in an aquifer, it is impossible to clean up. A surface spill will kill plants.
Although we eat plenty of sodium chloride, you can experiment with this. Really high formation chlorides fall in the range of 100,000 ppm (10% by weight) salt. Mix some water with 10% Morton's salt and pour it on a spot in your lawn. Yep. It will kill plants. Nature will very slowly clean it up, but not nearly as fast as in an oil spill.
Most chloride contamination cases come from waterflooding (secondary recovery) operations. A lot of times in waterfloods they inject at higher than normal reservoir pressure. This means that an overpressured zone can actually flow saltwater to the surface.
These days, to get a secondary recovery project permitted, you must make sure that there aren't any poorly plugged old wells in the area.
Does anyone here understand hydrostatic pressure? Does anyone understand flowing pressures and how it relates to permeability?
These are very basic ideas. The problem with this discussion is that nobody knows how oil and gas wells are drilled and produced. It is that simple. Nobody here understands how wells are cased, how modern cement works, and how easy it is to protect an aquifer from wellbore contamination.
The risk is when you start moving these materials around on the surface. Modern wells protect groundwater very well.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
|
"The problem with this discussion is that nobody knows how oil and gas wells are drilled and produced. It is that simple. Nobody here understands how wells are cased, how modern cement works, and how easy it is to protect an aquifer from wellbore contamination.
The risk is when you start moving these materials around on the surface. Modern wells protect groundwater very well."
Is that what they say to the people who have gas in their drinking water?
Is the same government agency that oversaw the gulf oil spill well the same one that oversees these wells? At the rate these are being drilled how much regulatory oversight is happening? My guess is little to none.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
|
PSP, you need to read sometimes. You can't get your head wrapped around this stuff at the Zendo.
You can look this up on your own. I don't have time to teach you about petroleum geology, and when I have tried it here, it is forgotten 20 posts later.
You have no clue about the geology. You have no clue about the regulations, which are stout.
No petroleum geology lessons today. I'm sorting and filing several inches of paperwork stratigraphy strewn around my office.
I will say that it is CHEAP to protect groundwater. The regulations are not to be trifled with, and basically every modern oil and gas well follows them to the letter. It is routine. The vast majority of groundwater pollution caused by the oil and gas industry is historic. I've never been involved in a well which caused problems, and to be honest, I only know of 2 cases of natural gas getting into groundwater in Oklahoma. They were vertical wells that had not been fracked.
Yes, accidents can happen, but they are pretty rare these days. As per the guy in the movie Gasland who lights his water on fire, it was not consistent with the natural occurring methane in the Wattenberg Field. It was biogenic in origin.
It created quite a fuss in Colorado, and it was investigated properly.
I don't even want to get into the shallow gas in the Appalachian Basin.
Geez. And I'm a Democrat.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
|
I do not have to be talked down to and we have talked about cement before.Yeah ,modern cement does not fail and you called me a carp.
You guys are right,500 surface ponds and their evaporative effects are actually better than say 11.
And please do not tell me what those holding ponds are for.
You sound like a salesman.
Trout Unlimited has been releasing fish kill info for PA.
Chlorides are the main reason .
Over 6000 wells and they are exporting it as fast as possible.
Meanwhile NG prices in the NE will rise for the winter.
It is all good,aye?
BASE,You should do some of those greenwashing commercials .
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 03:34pm PT
|
Base, since you have assured us everything is fine then we won't worry.
NOT!
There is a reason why Cheney made sure the process was exempt from numerous regulatory review processes ; because it would cost money and slow things down and expose the potential hazards.
One of the problems I see is these things are going in close to communities where most oil and gas are not as close and not as many. So the business as usual is in your neighbors yard and business as usual for industrial drilling doesn't mix (from an environmental Health point of view ) with residential living.
I think they are going as fast as they can before it all comes falling down and they will be gone with the cash and the communities will be left with their mess.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 03:51pm PT
|
www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21828-time-to-end-the-cheney-halliburton-loophole
This article discuss's the exemptions.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
|
www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many
Interesting article on how oil industry pressures EPA to drop studies.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
|
Do we read each other's posts or just post past them? I've been waiting in vain for a post that deals with those of BASE104's in facts rather than in assumptions. To me, that epitomizes the entire hydrofracking debate. I feel like I'm reading a debate where one side argues the world is flat, and responds to the counter-argument by repeating a mantra: "The world is flat. Look and see!"
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 05:09pm PT
|
"Do we read each other's posts or just post past them?"
Yes. Almost every time.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
|
JE ,With due respect,I do read the posts and the problems with fracking are being discussed.
Spills ,bad operators,surface handling are THE problems .
Detergent.
Really?
Here in NY ,We have paid out our ass for problems with industrial waste ,
MY WHOLE LIFE.
You may think otherwise about fracking ,but,fundamentally ,IT IS NOT.
Beside the above ,What FACTS have this industry divulged.
S.U.N.Y. Geology Degree,Terence.
edit;show me my assumptions
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 05:38pm PT
|
John; Base said the regulations are stout but a quick review shows they are exempt from many of the basic regulations and review . So Base is not addressing that when he acts like the expert and doesn't expose the true regulatory environment. It appears dishonest or naive.
My guess is they needed to be exempt because they put such nasty stuff into the ground they would never be allowed to do what they do if they fell under the typical guidelines for protecting groundwater. How do you protect groundwater when you inject pollutants into the ground , it's risky and shouldn't be allowed IMO. PS I'm a Professional geologist; but you don't have to be a geologist to see common sense issues are being violated.
For MONEY
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!