15 replies to this topic

[jugoso]

WASHINGTON - July 27 - Thousands of “fracktivists” will travel to Washington DC this week for Stop the Frack Attack, the first-ever national protest to stop dirty and dangerous fracking.
The 3-day summit will culminate in a rally on the West Lawn of the Capitol on Saturday, July 28 at 2pm, followed by a march at 3:30pm to the headquarters of America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute.
More than 130 local and national organizations are joining the summit to call on Congress to take action to protect community rights, public health, drinking water, and the global climate from the impacts of fracking. They will also demand the closure of legal loopholes that allow the oil and gas industry to ignore parts of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws while fracking.
http://www.commondre...re/2012/07/27-3
www.stopthefrackattack.org/schedule/

[QuiteContrary]

http://www.forbes.co...lf-sufficiency/

[jugoso]

QuiteContrary, on 27 July 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

http://www.forbes.co...lf-sufficiency/

Some quotes from your article:

we don’t yet know for sure is what impact it has on the movement of the earth
The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether fracking causes pollution or earthquakes.
fracking has actually driven up the values of land surrounding fracking sites.

There is no doubt that fracking has economic advantages. I am more concerned about the environmental ones. It´s a bunk article IMHO.

http://www.unexplain...g

http://www.unexplain...g

http://www.unexplain...g

Edited by jugoso, 27 July 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Armchair Educated]

thought fracking was a dirty word, i was mistakenly appalled lol

[jugoso]

Ever Learning, on 27 July 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

thought fracking was a dirty word, i was mistakenly appalled lol

It is and you should be

[Armchair Educated]

jugoso, on 27 July 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

It is and you should be

it gives new meaning to what you said

we don’t yet know for sure is what impact it has on the movement of the earth
The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether fracking causes pollution or earthquakes.
fracking has actually driven up the values of land surrounding fracking sites.


There is no doubt that fracking has economic advantages. I am more concerned about the environmental ones. It´s a bunk article IMHO

[Hilander]

When an activity results in you being able to ignite your water then I would say its bad.  Plus people living near these sights are reported to becoming ill.

[jugoso]

Hilander, on 27 July 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

When an activity results in you being able to ignite your water then I would say its bad.  Plus people living near these sights are reported to becoming ill.

But...but....property values are increasing!!

[QuiteContrary]

jugoso, on 27 July 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Some quotes from your article:

we don’t yet know for sure is what impact it has on the movement of the earth
The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether fracking causes pollution or earthquakes.
fracking has actually driven up the values of land surrounding fracking sites.

There is no doubt that fracking has economic advantages. I am more concerned about the environmental ones. It´s a bunk article IMHO.

http://www.unexplain...g

http://www.unexplain...g

http://www.unexplain...g

Sorry, I wasn't supporting the article. I thought it was weak too. My uncle allowed fracking on his property and it was done "improperly"  and the salt water killed all of his trees on his hill.

[White Unicorn]

I talked to a geologist who was assigned to the fracking areas in the some Eastern states last year. Researching something else than fracking lead team to the fracking areas for further research.
I'm not privy to say all that I discovered  from one of them but there are more effects being studied then they are releasing. I  know fracking done in the wrong way and wrong place can cause quakes and poison water.  I rocked through one of those quakes in a "non quake" area. These things should be studied very carefully before they proceed not after the fact.  It's usually only a one time boost to local economy but what will the effects be later on after the frackers and the money leaves?  

I never considered myself  an enviromentalist and all for better economics but it's very imortant to be cautious  about where they drill,  there are hot points that could eventually cause a tragedy we are not prepared to avoid .

[White Unicorn]

jugoso, on 27 July 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

But...but....property values are increasing!!

I wonder how much property value has increased in Japan after their little earthquake and melt down?
You got to think long term not just for the real estate people getting a temporary economic boom.

[Doug1o29]

jugoso, on 27 July 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

There is no doubt that fracking has economic advantages. I am more concerned about the environmental ones. It´s a bunk article IMHO.

I think the "environmentalists" are off on a bad tangent here.  Natural gas offers the only realistic bridge to the future.  We have to use it until we can bring cleaner energy on line.  Fracking is what makes most natural gas deposits extractable.  Without it, you can't release the gas from the shale.  That means Oklahoma will go out of the gas business because ours is all shale gas.  And so will most other sources of natural gas.

Fracking "earthquakes" have only been observed in areas where injection wells are operating.  There have been no such earthquakes in areas where there are only extraction wells.  Under pressure, forces take the route of least resistance and in the case of fracking, that is parallel to the bedding plains, which are horizontal.  Most earthquakes originate at points miles deeper than fracking ever goes.  The kinds of pressure needed to drive fracking fluids two miles down through solid rock staggers the imagination and cannot be achieved, even with explosives.

Fluids used in fracking are proprietary.  You don't release that information to anyone, because if your competitor learns what you're using, your advantage will disappear.  That's the reason the frackers don't want to release the formulations of their fluids.

A woman who had been driving past a particular well site for five years without getting sick, started having convulsions near that well.  Without checking her medical history or the history of the well, the anti-fracking folks started circulating a story that fracking was to blame.  We need solid evidence before we start shutting down wells.  This kind of thing only discredits the cause.

In short, if good research eventually shows that fracking causes the horrible things the anti-fracking folks say, then we need to phase it out and find another source of energy (Like nuclear?).  Until then, natural gas is our bridge to the future.  Let's not burn it down before we cross it.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Doug you are mistaken about Fracked gas been the the bridge fuel. Due to the short range of each well it requires vastly larger numbers of wells to extract the same amount of gas as a conventional well. Each well has a certain amount of leakage (mainly through sustained well casing pressure which is endemic to all gas wells and there are no viable remedial actions available to cure it once it is there). With one single conventional well this represents a rather minor element of the overall extracted gas. With the massive number of wells needed for fracking it represents a significant proportion of overall extracted gas. I am certain you are aware that Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, and I am also certain that you are aware that the Duke University study estimates that the greenhouse impact of losses from fracked well is equal or greater then the equivalent amount of coal. Couple this to the vast range of other environmental impacts of Fracking and it has to be asked - would it not be more sensible to just stick with coal ?
This is an industry driven push out attempting to soak up the excess drilling expertise and capacity which will become increasingly redundant as conventional reserves decline.

Fracking is not a path to a sustainable future - it is madness on every level which will inevitably help accelerate climate change through direct emissions to air and will lead to widespread pollution of water supplies (a dwindling and precious resource) . There are no long term reliable ways of making well casings immune to  sustained gas pressure and to claim that it is down to bad operators is to ignore the readily available industry data that makes all operators bad by that definition.

Doug I know you have a personal interest in this subject - but I believe that you position is entirely indefensible when the evidence is looked at impartially. It is no coincidence that the industry went to considerable lengths to corrupt both the political and environmental oversight processes because they were fully aware from a very early stage that any impartial scientific analysis of the impacts would have stopped this technology in its tracks.

Fracking is just a distraction from the herculean task of building a really sustainable energy future based on renewables. There are to many vested interests placing roadblocks along the way and when environmentalist start to support dubious unsustainable technologies such as Fracking and nuclear it makes the transition even harder.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 28 July 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 28 July 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Doug you are mistaken about Fracked gas been the the bridge fuel. Due to the short range of each well it requires vastly larger numbers of wells to extract the same amount of gas as a conventional well.

If you mean conventional gas wells, you may be right, but conventional gas wells are drilled in sandstone which is porous enough to yield large amounts of gas.  But we are running out of sandstone deposits.  What is left?  Shale.  And to extract natural gas from shale requires fracking.

Quote

Each well has a certain amount of leakage (mainly through sustained well casing pressure which is endemic to all gas wells and there are no viable remedial actions available to cure it once it is there).

About 4% of gas escapes, based on a study in eastern Colorado.

I know of an old gas field on the Alleghany National Forest with old wells leaking a steady stream of gas and I wonder if we could either use it, or cap it.

In the Baaken, the wells are being drilled for oil, but gas is a byproduct.  There is no pipeline to get the gas to market, so it is just burned off.  My daughter said she could see 18 flares from her current well.  The proposed Keystone Pipe Line right-of-way would allow the construction of a second pipeline beside the first one.  However, I don't believe that's an adequate reason for building Keystone.

Quote

With one single conventional well this represents a rather minor element of the overall extracted gas. With the massive number of wells needed for fracking it represents a significant proportion of overall extracted gas.

I think we are running out of places to put conventional wells.  It costs three to five million dollars to drill just one well (and one in six is a dry hole).  If what you're saying is true, economics will dictate the end of fracking in favor of drilling in sandstone deposits.

Quote

I am certain you are aware that Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, and I am also certain that you are aware that the Duke University study estimates that the greenhouse impact of losses from fracked well is equal or greater then the equivalent amount of coal. Couple this to the vast range of other environmental impacts of Fracking and it has to be asked - would it not be more sensible to just stick with coal?

Natural gas does not release many of the poisonous gases and particulates that coal does.  At any rate, I am only backing this as a stopgap until better alternatives (like wind, solar and, possibly, nuclear) can take over.

Quote

This is an industry driven push out attempting to soak up the excess drilling expertise and capacity which will become increasingly redundant as conventional reserves decline.

At least in Oklahoma, I think we will be running out of frackable sites within ten years.  Gas is only a stopgap, whatever happens.  The well on my own place is declining in output (I make about $25 a month now, down from $3000 a month fifteen years ago.).

Quote

Fracking is not a path to a sustainable future - it is madness on every level which will inevitably help accelerate climate change through direct emissions to air and will lead to widespread pollution of water supplies (a dwindling and precious resource) . There are no long term reliable ways of making well casings immune to  sustained gas pressure and to claim that it is down to bad operators is to ignore the readily available industry data that makes all operators bad by that definition.

Doug I know you have a personal interest in this subject - but I believe that you position is entirely indefensible when the evidence is looked at impartially. It is no coincidence that the industry went to considerable lengths to corrupt both the political and environmental oversight processes because they were fully aware from a very early stage that any impartial scientific analysis of the impacts would have stopped this technology in its tracks.

Fracking is just a distraction from the herculean task of building a really sustainable energy future based on renewables. There are to many vested interests placing roadblocks along the way and when environmentalist start to support dubious unsustainable technologies such as Fracking and nuclear it makes the transition even harder.

Br Cornelius

I fully agree that we need to put more effort into renewable energy and less into propping up coal, gas and oil.  I think if all energy sources had to compete on an equal basis, wind would come off pretty well.  It is already cheaper than gas, coal and oil.

Thanks for your comments.  I enjoy appreciate your opinions.
Doug

[Babe Ruth]

Doug

The ingredients and composition of the fracking fluid is kept secret NOT from competitors, but from the PUBLIC.  If people knew what was in that stuff, they would strenuously object.  The stuff is poisonous, and that's why tap water is becoming flammable in areas where they frack.