Fracking . . or not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


vincentML -> Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 9:01:49 AM)

Reuters article on Hydraulic Fracturing

There is mounting Environmentalist push-back against hydraulic fracturing over concerns for drinking water contamination and earthquakes. The oil and gas industry defend their drilling technique. The Obama EPA is considering regulations as are several states. HBO broadcast a documentary called "Gasland" in 2010. The forthcoming film "Promised Land" focuses on the issue.

Has Fracking been an issue in your area? It is not an issue in south Florida where we have only sand, alligators, and invading boa constrictors in the swamps, so I have no local experience to share. Is there a consensus in your area over whether fracking poses an environmental threat? Do you have an opinion on this issue? Or any direct experience with it?




Moonhead -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 9:13:44 AM)

They don't do fracking over here, but it's news to me that there was any doubt that it contaminates groundwater. There's quite a bit in Schlosser's Fast Food Nation (obviously a partisan liberal tirade against wealth creators, bear in mind) about cattle ranchers and smallholders in the southwest who've had their land destroyed by fracking for gas nearby.




deathtothepixies -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 9:20:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

They don't do fracking over here, but it's news to me that there was any doubt that it contaminates groundwater. There's quite a bit in Schlosser's Fast Food Nation (obviously a partisan liberal tirade against wealth creators, bear in mind) about cattle ranchers and smallholders in the southwest who've had their land destroyed by fracking for gas nearby.


oh yes they do.......( well it is panto season )


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/13/fracking-shale-gas-green-light?intcmp=239


The government has lifted restrictions on the controversial practice of fracking, a method of extracting gas from shale rock, giving a green light to drilling that could produce billions of pounds worth of gas.

The first site is likely to be at Anna's Road in Lancashire, near three exploratory fracking wells that were closed after two minor earthquakes last year. Cuadrilla Resources, the firm responsible for the operations, found that the quakes were probably caused by the fracking. Dozens more sites across the country could be licensed as ministers signalled their hope that shale gas would help to make up for the decline in North Sea supplies.

The go-ahead will dismay environmental campaigners who argue that chemicals used in the drilling technology will contaminate water supplies and that extracting more gas will intensify climate change. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the statutory body set up to advise ministers on how to meet the UK's greenhouse gas targets, has warned that a big expansion in the use of gas – such as the 40 new gas-fired power stations the Treasury is aiming for – would be incompatible with the UK's carbon budgets.

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat energy and climate secretary, said: "Shale gas could contribute significantly to our energy security, and reduce imports of gas as we move to a low-carbon economy. It could substitute for imports, which are increasing as North Sea gas is decreasing."

He said companies drilling wells would be subject to a "traffic light" system, with seismic monitoring to ensure that if there are tremors above a certain level, drilling is halted pending investigation. Any chemicals used in fracking have to be approved by the Environment Agency, while the Health and Safety Executive will also be involved in vetting operations.

Davey also said there had been "weaknesses in the management of environmental risks" by Cuadrilla, relating to the seismic activity at its Lancashire sites, but refused to specify further. However, Cuadrilla is understood to have addressed these issues, and external consultants will report back to Davey before he authorises any new Cuadrilla sites.

Francis Egan, chief executive of Cuadrilla, which is pouring tens of millions into exploration, said: "This is a big step for the country, and could be a very valuable resource. We are moving ahead with our plans."

Estimates of how much shale gas there might be in the UK vary widely. Cuadrilla – the only firm yet to have drilled exploratory wells – believes there could be 200 trillion cubic feet beneath the surface. That would be about 70 times the UK's annual gas demand But the estimate is regarded as much too high by some geologists.

The real question is not how much gas there might be, but how much is technically recoverable, and recoverable at a reasonable cost. That amount could be far lower than the available resource – iIt could be less than 5% is of the total amount of shale gas under the surface. But even that could be worth hundreds of billions of pounds over decades.




Moonhead -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 9:25:14 AM)

Shit, I'd not heard about that.
Looks like Clegg isn't the only LibDem with his tongue so far up Cameron's arse it's hanging out of his nostril, does it?




Politesub53 -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 10:20:47 AM)

I watch Gasland and I am unconvinced Fracking is safe. Lest we forget, it caused problems with earth tremours last time it was tried over here.




JeffBC -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 10:23:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I watch Gasland and I am unconvinced Fracking is safe. Lest we forget, it caused problems with earth tremours last time it was tried over here.

but... but.... the oil and gas companies have studied the question extensively and they assure us that it's safe to pad their wallets further.




Politesub53 -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 10:30:43 AM)

Jeff........One upside is we will get proper instant coffee from the flamming water as it leaves the taps. [;)]




Moonhead -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/24/2012 11:01:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I watch Gasland and I am unconvinced Fracking is safe. Lest we forget, it caused problems with earth tremours last time it was tried over here.

That's why they were stopped doing it, wasn't it?




tweakabelle -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/25/2012 8:28:34 AM)

There is a lot of concern, particularly from Green and Agricultural lobbies*, about this practice which is widespread along the Eastern Seaboard here (and for all I know, the rest of the country too)

It even goes on in the middle of Sydney. Thus far the energy lobby has won the day but it wont be like that forever. Sooner or later the practice will be banned here.

* One unlikely positive side effect of fracking has been the creation of an alliance between green groups and farmers, previously mortal enemies, over this issue.




vincentML -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/25/2012 8:33:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There is a lot of concern, particularly from Green and Agricultural lobbies*, about this practice which is widespread along the Eastern Seaboard here (and for all I know, the rest of the country too)

It even goes on in the middle of Sydney. Thus far the energy lobby has won the day but it wont be like that forever. Sooner or later the practice will be banned here.*

One unlikely positive side effect of fracking has been the creation of an alliance between green groups and farmers, previously mortal enemies, over this issue.

LOL! You are an incredible optimist. When have the oil and gas industries ever been denied?

WB, btw [:)]




Raptorsc -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/25/2012 8:55:46 AM)

They might say "we're looking into that" or "were doing a study" but the major Railroad i work for in the chicago land area is spending tens of millions to upgrade older rail lines to lines capable of handling "frack sand" shipments, and these arent 1 or 2 car trains, 109 cars, 143 tons each. And if theyre spending the money to upgrade lines to ship this stuff, its a done deal no study or environmental group is going to change that.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/25/2012 9:46:41 AM)

NE Ohio (and other states) lies atop the Marcellus Shale Formation and Gov. Kasich is working to get production wells drilled. Fracking may have the same main drawback that nuke power has: waste disposal.

Link #1

    quote:

    If one of the things you love about Northeast Ohio is its unsurpassed imperviousness, you might be especially concerned about last Saturday’s Youngstown earthquake, the eleventh in the area since last spring. And probably even more concerned that since Saturday a Columbia University seismologist has come out to say that all eleven of these earthquakes were “almost certainly caused” by a Youngstown well used to dispose of wastewater from oil and gas drilling,


Link #2

    quote:

    A northeast Ohio well used to dispose of wastewater from oil and gas drilling almost certainly caused a series of 11 minor quakes in the Youngstown area since last spring, a seismologist investigating the quakes said Monday.


Link #3
    quote:

    The latest quake appears to have been located about two- thirds of a mile from the injection wells and about 1.2 miles below ground, he said.
    This quake shows all the similarities of the 10 previous Youngstown quakes in 2011, he said.
    Ohio also worked with scientists from Columbia University who had installed four seismographs near the site.
    The first two Youngstown earthquakes occurred on March 17 and measured 2.1 and 2.6.
    The state became suspicious of the injection wells after the initial quakes, which are unusual events in the Youngstown area, he said.


Link #4
    quote:

    In a release today, the state Department of Natural Resources announced the "new environmentally responsible standards for transporting and disposing of brine, a by-product of oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing" because of the report's findings on the well in Youngstown.
    Hydraulic fracturing or fracking involves freeing the gas by injecting water into the earth, but that water needs to be disposed of when companies are done with it. Municipal water treatment plants aren't designed to remove some of the contaminants found in the wastewater, including radioactive elements. A common practice is to re-inject it into the ground, a practice banned in some states.
    The report's findings, the Ohio regulator said, show the earthquakes were based on "a number of coincidental circumstances," not just a direct link to the brine disposal. For one, investigators said, the well began operations just three months ahead of the first quake.
    They also noted that the seismic activity was clustered around the well bore, and reported that a fault has since been identified in the Precambrian basement rock where water was being injected.
    "Geologists believe it is very difficult for all conditions to be met to induce seismic events," the report states. "In fact, all the evidence indicates that properly located … injection wells will not cause earthquakes."
    The improper placement of the Youngstown well stemmed in part from inadequate geological data being available to regulators, the report states. New rules would require a complete roll of geophysical logs to be submitted to the state.
    "These logs were not available to inform regulators of the possible issues in geologic formations prior to well operation," the document says.
    Requiring well operators to submit more comprehensive geologic data is just one of the added regulations the department will either impose immediately or pursue through legislative or rule changes.


Apparently, the fracking isn't the issue as much as it is disposing of the resultant brine. The first two quakes from the disposal injection well in Y-town was on March 17th, 2011, and the last one (after which the well was closed) was December 31st, 2011. 11 quakes in <9 months. That's some crazy ass shit there. And., it's entirely possible that fracking itself isn't a problem and that "properly located" disposal wells won't be an issue.

I absolutely want fracking to be a safe and reliable method of drilling. My hangups are in whether or not it is safe, including the waste brine disposal.




mnottertail -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/26/2012 8:14:17 AM)

Well, with the droughts already underway, and the near disappearance of the Oglala acquifier, and already strained drinking water resources --wells running dry and the like,  and bedrock being blown into shards, fracking is a pass in my book.




Aylee -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 9:53:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I watch Gasland and I am unconvinced Fracking is safe. Lest we forget, it caused problems with earth tremours last time it was tried over here.

but... but.... the oil and gas companies have studied the question extensively and they assure us that it's safe to pad their wallets further.



Fracking came into use in 1947.  Massively used for the last 30 years.  Used on over a million wells.  Hell, they talked about it in the first season of Dallas

Why has this become an issue now? 




jlf1961 -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:03:43 AM)

because the chemicals used get into ground water, and there is a tendency for methane gas to travel with the well water into homes, makes it a fun night when the water in your shower catches fire.




mnottertail -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:04:45 AM)

Fracking actually was around the US in the 1860's but the major uses have been since the 1980's and the bigger difference now is the horizontal fracking rather than the older fracking of around the well holes, now they are doing miles of bed continuously.

I don't buy the shit about no earthquakes,  don't know if it does or doesn't but it is like saying loft a couple nukes at moscow, they won't do anything.

If you are sharding the bedrock of the earth in vast ranges, its gonna do something at sometime, alright.

Water and other natural resources weren't so much worried about in those days, hell we still used phosphates in our laundry......... 




meatcleaver -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:15:02 AM)

Fracking requires hug quanities of water, which itself is a valuable resource, which is then contaminated and needs to be processed, which often it isn't because it eats into profits. The polluted water then goes onto pollute the environment. Even when water is supposedly in a self contained system, it escapes and pollutes.

Fracking is going to be another case where the tax payer pays for the externalities while the energy companies pile up the profits at the expense of the public good.




mnottertail -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:20:25 AM)

And we haven't contributed for the superfund cleanup, nor have they.

Love Canal should be lesson learned.




jlf1961 -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:23:56 AM)

cant we just build luxury condos on the super fund sites and move the republicans there?




Aylee -> RE: Fracking . . or not? (12/28/2012 10:24:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

because the chemicals used get into ground water, and there is a tendency for methane gas to travel with the well water into homes, makes it a fun night when the water in your shower catches fire.


You do know that methane at times naturally moves into aquifers, right?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875