More 'good' news on fracking

[Samson]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

In SOME places there is no water issue.

Regardless, water should be viewed as a resource: A typical frac might take 200K bbl water, about 25% of which will "flowback" once the well is de-pressurized.

What to do with 50K bbl flowback water? Three choices

1. Haul it off to a reprocessor
2. Dispose of it in a waste water well
3. Treat it at the site
4. Use it again (untreated)

Notice that "dumping it on the surface" is not a choice. If it was, you'd be seeing pictures of fetited pits. There is an EPA, and it does its job.

 

[Samson]

Ironic that NY and NJ are so dead set against the practice of fracking...

EPA Releases New York and New Jersey Sewage Pollution Report - Yahoo! News

The report released today, titled Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public's Water, analyzes the issue of large amounts of stormwater runoff from heavy rains entering and overflowing sewage systems and causing raw sewage to enter bodies of water, including rivers, lakes, and streams.

Put things in perspective, get your priorities straight.

That's OK.

Texas enjoys job growth that fracking employment represents, additional tax revenue, and profitably selling gas to NJ and NY at the premium prices it takes to transport it there from the Eagle Ford basin.

 

[Samson]

You do what you like.

Not in my back yard.

If it were in your backyard you would be making money off it.

In New York they are passing regulations which seem fair, and are very stringent. This includes washback control, and areas near the watershed where it wouldnt be allowed.

but but but... I hate oil and this wouldn't serve my long term political desires of destroying western style life! I'm sorry, I was getting the strong feeling to channel my inner Manifold.

I hope you recovered before diarrea began leaking out your ears.

 

[Disenchanted61]

What is even worse , is that our purported representatives will allow this method of extraction to continue,
while evidence is proving the adverse affects, as well as those of a (particular political ideology), will defend
their "RIGHT TO DO SO!!" in the name of "FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!!" WHEEEEE!!!

 

[oldsalt]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

It goes through the aquifers, you dolt. Duh.

 

[oldsalt]

If it were in your backyard you would be making money off it.

In New York they are passing regulations which seem fair, and are very stringent. This includes washback control, and areas near the watershed where it wouldnt be allowed.

but but but... I hate oil and this wouldn't serve my long term political desires of destroying western style life! I'm sorry, I was getting the strong feeling to channel my inner Manifold.

I hope you recovered before diarrea began leaking out your ears.

Doubt it. Hasn't happened for him yet.

 

[oldsalt]

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/120511/full/news.2011.282.htm

A US Congressional report released in April showed that the 14 most active hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States together used nearly 3 billion litres of fracking fluid, not including water. The products contained at least 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens2.

The question is what concentrations these chemicals are used in, and whether the substances (or natural hazards such as radioactive radium present in the rock) escape the drilling area and contaminate water supplies — either by leaking out from the drill site, or through improper disposal. An investigation by The New York Times3 revealed worrying levels of radioactivity in fracking wastewater going to rivers in Pennsylvania. The PNAS study, however, found no evidence that fracking fluids were leaching into wells. The US Environmental Protection Agency launched a study of these questions in March last year — but the agency doesn't expect results to start coming in until the end of 2012, with a report scheduled for 2014.

Aren't there regulations in place to prevent pollution?

Fracking is exempt from the US Safe Drinking Water Act, although the US House of Representatives did introduce a bill in March to close that loophole. The bill seems to have strong Democratic support, but it is unclear how popular it will prove overall.

NYC alone uses 1 BILLION gallons of water a DAY, to give you some scale persoective.

Fracking's issues comes from poor control of waste liquid at the surface, and insufficent sealing of the pipe going down to the recovery strata. The actions happening in the gas bearing rock has little impact on aquifiers, as by definintion an aquifier must have layers of impermeable rock isolating it to allow for the accumulation of groundwater.

Until you go through the aquifer to GET to it, you idiot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

State environmental regulators have said the water that flows back from "fracking" natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale is really foul stuff.

A recently published peer-reviewed U.S. Forest Service study offers a glimpse of just how foul.

Mary Beth Adams, a U.S. Forest Service researcher, studied what happened when 75,000 gallons of fracking fluids legally released from a non-Marcellus well were spread on the ground in a quarter-acre section of the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia.

Within two days, all ground plants were dead.

Within 10 days, leaves of trees began to turn brown.

Within two years, more than half of the approximately 150 trees were dead.

But but but, it's perfectly safe.

Fracking water test leaves salty aftertaste | PennLive.com

Like Nuke energy is clean (when waste is ignored) so is natural gas.

 

[skookerasbil]

I would suggest the k00ks to get used to the idea of fracking because in the coming years, we are going to be fracking our asses off..........and I'll be laughing my balls off. The days of the environ-mentals holding serve on issues related to energy are fast coming to an end and I must say, it has me laughing my balls off.

In fact, even a lefty magazine like Salon is now writing that it is the beginning of the fossil fuel age, not the end as the k00ks would lead you to believe.

Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong - War Room - Salon.com

It is quite simply a matter of economics..........as Ive been saying for well over a year = NOBODY GIVES A RATS ASS ABOUT THE SCIENCE ANYMORE.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[pubrela]

In Morgantown, WV there is considerable debate regarding the mining of the Marcellus Shale. Public debate began when a company began "fracking" operations in an area within site of the city's water intake facility. And although the city recently passed a bill limiting drilling in city limits, mine operators are suing the city for millions because of it.

I'm a pretty conservative person; however, with the mining, foresting and fracking, I believe West Virginia is heading toward becoming a wasteland. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/120511/full/news.2011.282.htm

A US Congressional report released in April showed that the 14 most active hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States together used nearly 3 billion litres of fracking fluid, not including water. The products contained at least 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens2.

The question is what concentrations these chemicals are used in, and whether the substances (or natural hazards such as radioactive radium present in the rock) escape the drilling area and contaminate water supplies — either by leaking out from the drill site, or through improper disposal. An investigation by The New York Times3 revealed worrying levels of radioactivity in fracking wastewater going to rivers in Pennsylvania. The PNAS study, however, found no evidence that fracking fluids were leaching into wells. The US Environmental Protection Agency launched a study of these questions in March last year — but the agency doesn't expect results to start coming in until the end of 2012, with a report scheduled for 2014.

Aren't there regulations in place to prevent pollution?

Fracking is exempt from the US Safe Drinking Water Act, although the US House of Representatives did introduce a bill in March to close that loophole. The bill seems to have strong Democratic support, but it is unclear how popular it will prove overall.

NYC alone uses 1 BILLION gallons of water a DAY, to give you some scale persoective.

Fracking's issues comes from poor control of waste liquid at the surface, and insufficent sealing of the pipe going down to the recovery strata. The actions happening in the gas bearing rock has little impact on aquifiers, as by definintion an aquifier must have layers of impermeable rock isolating it to allow for the accumulation of groundwater.

Until you go through the aquifer to GET to it, you idiot.

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

 

[martybegan]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

It goes through the aquifers, you dolt. Duh.

Again, as long as you maintain integrity of the pipe going through said aquifer this can be controlled. You had to go through aquifers for normal gas drilling, so this has been done before.

If you want to go with name calling, I can bring it, you tired trolling shitstain. Fuck off and Die.

 

[oldsalt]

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

It goes through the aquifers, you dolt. Duh.

Again, as long as you maintain integrity of the pipe going through said aquifer this can be controlled. You had to go through aquifers for normal gas drilling, so this has been done before.

If you want to go with name calling, I can bring it, you tired trolling shitstain. Fuck off and Die.

I'll go with name calling as long as you continue to lie and misrepresent. "As long as", what a fucking idiot you are. How dare someone challenge your stupidity, huh?

 

[oldsalt]

NYC alone uses 1 BILLION gallons of water a DAY, to give you some scale persoective.

Fracking's issues comes from poor control of waste liquid at the surface, and insufficent sealing of the pipe going down to the recovery strata. The actions happening in the gas bearing rock has little impact on aquifiers, as by definintion an aquifier must have layers of impermeable rock isolating it to allow for the accumulation of groundwater.

Until you go through the aquifer to GET to it, you idiot.

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Tell that to the people whose water is fucked, you imbecile. I'm not playing, but you obviously are, with other people's health. I'm not tired, either, i'll continue to call you on your uninformed bullshit. Try again, lenny.

 

[oldsalt]

In Morgantown, WV there is considerable debate regarding the mining of the Marcellus Shale. Public debate began when a company began "fracking" operations in an area within site of the city's water intake facility. And although the city recently passed a bill limiting drilling in city limits, mine operators are suing the city for millions because of it.

I'm a pretty conservative person; however, with the mining, foresting and fracking, I believe West Virginia is heading toward becoming a wasteland. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

You're not wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Until you go through the aquifer to GET to it, you idiot.

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Tell that to the people whose water is fucked, you imbecile. I'm not playing, but you obviously are, with other people's health. I'm not tired, either, i'll continue to call you on your uninformed bullshit. Try again, lenny.

Any action can have negative consequences, if done improperly. There is no such thing as 0% risk. Your blind ignorance of the basic science and engineering behind the method of gas extraction shows a person unwilling to look into the actual mechanics of the method in question, and a basic "NIMBY" approach to anything you dont understand or like.

I have a Masters in ChemE, so uninformed is not the way to go, tough guy. You may not like what I am talking about, but on the science and engineering, I have you cold.

Try again.

 

[manifold]

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Tell that to the people whose water is fucked, you imbecile. I'm not playing, but you obviously are, with other people's health. I'm not tired, either, i'll continue to call you on your uninformed bullshit. Try again, lenny.

Any action can have negative consequences, if done improperly. There is no such thing as 0% risk. Your blind ignorance of the basic science and engineering behind the method of gas extraction shows a person unwilling to look into the actual mechanics of the method in question, and a basic "NIMBY" approach to anything you dont understand or like.

I have a Masters in ChemE, so uninformed is not the way to go, tough guy. You may not like what I am talking about, but on the science and engineering, I have you cold.

Try again.

I've researched it extensively and I say NIMBY all the way.

I don't believe they have it nearly as well in hand as you suggest. And "if it's done safely, it will be safe" isn't even a real argument, let alone a convincing one.

 

[oldsalt]

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Tell that to the people whose water is fucked, you imbecile. I'm not playing, but you obviously are, with other people's health. I'm not tired, either, i'll continue to call you on your uninformed bullshit. Try again, lenny.

Any action can have negative consequences, if done improperly. There is no such thing as 0% risk. Your blind ignorance of the basic science and engineering behind the method of gas extraction shows a person unwilling to look into the actual mechanics of the method in question, and a basic "NIMBY" approach to anything you dont understand or like.

I have a Masters in ChemE, so uninformed is not the way to go, tough guy. You may not like what I am talking about, but on the science and engineering, I have you cold.

Try again.

Trotting out fake credentials is an epic fail on your part. Loser. you don't have shit cold, except for your lies. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Ravi]

Which is why you need to double wall the pipe going through said aquifer. As long as you dont impact the impermeable rock on either side of the aquifer it should not have an impact on water quality.

thanks for playing you tired troll hack.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Tell that to the people whose water is fucked, you imbecile. I'm not playing, but you obviously are, with other people's health. I'm not tired, either, i'll continue to call you on your uninformed bullshit. Try again, lenny.

Any action can have negative consequences, if done improperly. There is no such thing as 0% risk. Your blind ignorance of the basic science and engineering behind the method of gas extraction shows a person unwilling to look into the actual mechanics of the method in question, and a basic "NIMBY" approach to anything you dont understand or like.

I have a Masters in ChemE, so uninformed is not the way to go, tough guy. You may not like what I am talking about, but on the science and engineering, I have you cold.

Try again.

You work for an oil company?