Fracking, some very good news

[Nosmo King]

kewl, 2 people that have some near first hand knowledge.

Nosmo, it's not about throwing out the book, no ones fool enough to do that []
However the book gets over bearing.

It takes 30+ years to open a nuke plant, so no one bothers b/c it takes to long to start earning money let alone turn a profit.

ever hear of OSHA? These goons patroled the Navy for anything that may be wrong, and when they didn't find anything, or not enough, they hounded the crews.

I was on the USS Orion. a very old sub repair ship, that was getting ready for decomissioning. But for some reason OSHA wanted to inspect it. One very new shipmate, spilled a bucket of grease. He followed all the rules as best that he could and those around him could. While he was cleaning, an inspecter came by and asked him if he was done with that rag. [he had filled it and set it next to him] He said yes.

bam

$275,000 fine for not properly disposing of the oily rag.

Why were we really fined? Power. The inspector had the power and power corrupts.

A couple of points, thumbs. And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag. And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry. The EPA regulates government workplaces.

I know no one wants to throw out the book. But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place? For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials. But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials. NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does. In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm). But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.

Profit trumps science. Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.

when I heard it, I thought is was scuttle butt [rumor]. A stroy getting better each time it's told. Then we had to have training on use and disposal of oily rags and how to respond to inspectors. this occured early-mid 90's, so I may have the alphabet Dept wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I understand profit over people occurs, and w/o regs it would happen more often. I've met guys that would rather smell the fumes or get burned a little than wear safety gear.

There has to be a middle ground.

And right now I'd say we are over regualted to the point it's hurting business, and thus jobs and the economy.

The natural gas industry is in a dither trying to get mineral rights secured and as many gas wells set as possible here in upper Appalachia before the public gets testy. I would love to see us extract the gas from our own deposits. I would love to see many parts of transportation convert to natural gas rather than gasoline.

But, if extracting that gas means that the aquifer gets damaged or the quality of life for those living near the well head suffers or the infrastructure (our roads and bridges) gets damaged as a result of all that drilling activity, I do think it's prudent to take a beat and decide what's the bigger priority: cheap fuel or the damage acquiring it makes.

It's an easy decision for those not directly impacted by the damage. Why, give us cheap fuel? Drill baby, drill! Those folks don't live here.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A couple of points, thumbs. And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag. And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry. The EPA regulates government workplaces.

I know no one wants to throw out the book. But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place? For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials. But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials. NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does. In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm). But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.

Profit trumps science. Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.

when I heard it, I thought is was scuttle butt [rumor]. A stroy getting better each time it's told. Then we had to have training on use and disposal of oily rags and how to respond to inspectors. this occured early-mid 90's, so I may have the alphabet Dept wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I understand profit over people occurs, and w/o regs it would happen more often. I've met guys that would rather smell the fumes or get burned a little than wear safety gear.

There has to be a middle ground.

And right now I'd say we are over regualted to the point it's hurting business, and thus jobs and the economy.

The natural gas industry is in a dither trying to get mineral rights secured and as many gas wells set as possible here in upper Appalachia before the public gets testy. I would love to see us extract the gas from our own deposits. I would love to see many parts of transportation convert to natural gas rather than gasoline.

But, if extracting that gas means that the aquifer gets damaged or the quality of life for those living near the well head suffers or the infrastructure (our roads and bridges) gets damaged as a result of all that drilling activity, I do think it's prudent to take a beat and decide what's the bigger priority: cheap fuel or the damage acquiring it makes.

It's an easy decision for those not directly impacted by the damage. Why, give us cheap fuel? Drill baby, drill! Those folks don't live here.

Oh yeah. If it proves to do harm, actual harm, then we will have to move on. However, if it is minor, and I live in PA where this drilling is going on, then we will have to learn to deal with.

or

embrace nuclear or learn to chop wood.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ignited the fracking fluid from the well. Now that sounds like the stuff is safe, right?

ND oil well fire out; temporarily capped - BusinessWeek

It's back under control and no longer flaring," said Brent Collins, a spokesman for the well's owner, SM Energy Co. of Denver. "The fire is out."

Collins said well fire specialists from Houston-based Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. stopped the fire Friday morning and were rebuilding the wellhead that afternoon. The process could take several days, he said.

"The mechanical and structural integrity is still intact, and we will be able to reuse the well," Collins said.

The fire, eight miles north of Arnegard, started March 7. No one was hurt. Lynn Helms, the director of the state Department of Mineral Resources, has said a hot engine from a pump truck likely ignited hydraulic fracturing fluid from the well. McKenzie County Sheriff Ron Rankin said flames from the well roiled up to 80 feet in the air.

Well fire specialists and equipment from Boots & Coots, which is now owned by oil services company Halliburton Co., have been on scene since last week. But the company, which has helped douse oil field fires from Nigeria to Kuwait, faced problems beyond a blown-out well: North Dakota's notoriously nasty weather.

Helms said a blizzard last week halted firefighting efforts for at least one day. The well site and roads leading to it then became mired with mud from warmer temperatures, forcing crews to dump gravel so machinery could get to the blaze, he said.

"The weather and blizzard was a major problem," Helms said. "They are used to working in all kinds of environments, but this was one that made work impossible."

 

[Old Rocks]

15% to 80% of rather poisoness material recovered. So where does the rest end up? And if the chemicals show up in the aquifer years after the recovery of oil and gas is done, then who do the people in the community turn to?

The Fracturing War Rages On

Unfortunately, heated arguments in the hydraulic fracturing debate haven't eased in the slightest.

Both sides refuse to let-up.

As you know, hydraulic fracturing is the dominant method being used to extract oil and gas from those shale formations. The process involves injecting the geologic formation with fluid, 99% of which is composed of sand and water. The fluid fractures the rock, allowing the resource to flow freely. Sand or ceramic proppant is used to keep the fractures open.

By now, you probably realize most people don't take issue with the water or the sand part of the equation. Their problem is with less than 1% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid being used in the procedure. That cocktail of chemicals used by companies can be deadly if it gets into our drinking water.

And remember that only about 15-80% of the fluids injected into the well are recovered.However, you should always step back and look at both sides of the fence before jumping on board.

Even the eye-catching documentary Gasland, which painted a gruesome picture of an industry laden with guilt concerning groundwater contamination, is not above scrutiny.

 

[Old Rocks]

A scientific study published by the National Academy of Science;


Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing - ProPublica

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking - ProPublica

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 [1], published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate [2] 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 [3].


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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A scientific study published by the National Academy of Science;


Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing - ProPublica

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking - ProPublica

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 [1], published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate [2] 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 [3].


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.

Thanks

also from your link

The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion.

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

 

[manifold]

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

Exactly.

The free market will work it out. As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued. And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.

I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.

 

[RGR]

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

It is. People have been doing it for better than a century, those who live near and around coal mines. You let the water sit in a tank at atmospheric pressure prior to pumping it into the house. It degases right there outside where it doesn't bother anyone.

Back in the 70's we just drank the stuff, called it fizzy water.

And the article uses the difference between thermogenic and biogenic gas to "prove" something about hydraulic fracturing. Bullshit. Thermogenic gas is also common in shales, such as those in Pennsylvania, at shallow depths, like those people drill into for their water wells. Presto. Thermogenic gas in drinking water, and not a well in sight.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

Exactly.

The free market will work it out. As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued. And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.

I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.

die from drinking water?

There's in not a single death from drinking tap water in America.

 

[Father Time]

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

Exactly.

The free market will work it out. As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued. And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.

I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.

It is difficult for an individual to take on a large company's team of lawyers.

 

[manifold]

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Seems like this is a very fixable issue

Exactly.

The free market will work it out. As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued. And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.

I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.

It is difficult for an individual to take on a large company's team of lawyers.

Bullshit.

Ever hear of class action suits?

Lawyers get paid upto 40% if they win and nothing if they lose.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.

Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.

Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.

 

[manifold]

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.

Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.

Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.

fracking and cancer - Google Search

 

[martybegan]

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.

Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.

Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.

fracking and cancer - Google Search

Get some lawyer advertisements (suprise suprise) and a few posts on "possible" links to cancer and fracking, none of them very "science-y".

The tricky thing with cancer and chemical exposure is that you cannot directly correlate concentration, exposure duration, route and location with a definitive "yes X amount causes you cancer" It is all based upon risk assesment.

Toxicity risks are far easier to determine, such as LD-50's (lethal dose 50%) and IDLH (Immidiate danger to life and health). You get up to "concentration X" and you are in big trouble.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.

Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.

Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.

fracking and cancer - Google Search

Going through a bunch of those, for you, I have found no proof.

again.

 

[flacaltenn]

My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..

HOWEVER, I believe the companies SHOULD disclose exactly what they are using. Just to keep this a fair game. You can't go dumping "secret crap" into the ground.

Then frack baby frack.

It's the only point made in that "Oscar Nominated" P.O.S. that made sense.

How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well! But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.

PS. Now that we know what it takes to get a documentary Oscar Nominated, why don't some of us "skeptical trogs" beat them at their own game..

 

[RGR]

My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..

As a frac engineer back in the 90's, let me rat out the proprietary nature of the chemicals I used. Lots of water. Some sand. A coupld gallons of surfactant, and a biocide to treat the water in the tanks. Not a hydrocarbon in sight.

<sigh>

I will probably now be sued by the Professional Organization of Fracing Engineers for revealing the secrets of our profession.

How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well! But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.

Methane is odorless. The odor that some people associate with it is generally from the odorizing agent that pipeline companies use in the natural gas stream so you can actually smell it if it is leaking out somewhere.

 

[Two Thumbs]

My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..

HOWEVER, I believe the companies SHOULD disclose exactly what they are using. Just to keep this a fair game. You can't go dumping "secret crap" into the ground.

Then frack baby frack.

It's the only point made in that "Oscar Nominated" P.O.S. that made sense.

How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well! But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.

PS. Now that we know what it takes to get a documentary Oscar Nominated, why don't some of us "skeptical trogs" beat them at their own game..

The reason no company will expoase what they use, in any detail, is b/c it's thier own special mix and don't want the competition to know what they are using.

Just like Coke and KFC.


Well water always had this nasty taste to it [for me]. Wonder if it was the methane.

 

[Two Thumbs]

My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..

As a frac engineer back in the 90's, let me rat out the proprietary nature of the chemicals I used. Lots of water. Some sand. A coupld gallons of surfactant, and a biocide to treat the water in the tanks. Not a hydrocarbon in sight.

<sigh>

I will probably now be sued by the Professional Organization of Fracing Engineers for revealing the secrets of our profession.

How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well! But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.

Methane is odorless. The odor that some people associate with it is generally from the odorizing agent that pipeline companies use in the natural gas stream so you can actually smell it if it is leaking out somewhere.

What's that?