Flaming Water in Texas Around BEFORE Fracking!

[longknife]

Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim
Water wells supposedly contaminated by fracking were flammable years before gas drilling

BY: Lachlan Markay February 6, 2014 1:15 pm

Newly released photos of a flaming water well have renewed skepticism of claims by environmental activists and federal regulators that hydraulic fracturing made drinking water supplies in Parker County, Texas, flammable.

The 2005 photos show that drinking water in the area contained sufficiently high methane concentrations to be ignited years before a company blamed by environmentalists for water contamination began drilling in the area.

The photos can be seen here @

and

But, most important, read the entire story @ Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim | Washington Free Beacon

 

[jedi1412]

What is this ???

 

[jedi1412]

Is it a water flaming or fire flaming ???

 

[Mr. H.]

Fire water good.

 

[JiggsCasey]

But, most important, read the entire story @ Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim | Washington Free Beacon

Indeed, do read it.

Just for perspective, the site is the mouthpiece for the painfully connish Center for American Freedom. From their "About Us" section:

"Our mission is to transform conservative ideas into policy because we believe it is America’s freedom that creates boundless opportunity for her people."​

The section also begins with a quote from... Ron Reagan. LOL... What a news source.

Anyhoo, the story says the flaming "whatever that might actually be" was a half-mile from the well in question. Consider non-mouth breathers unimpressed, and do better.

The Kock Bros. aren't paying for shills this lazy. Do be sure to follow the Range case closely, and we'll see what these vague pictures provide for the case.

 

[RGR]

The Kock Bros. aren't paying for shills this lazy.

Really? What are you paid for pimping The Church of Peak Oil?

Welcome back Jiggsy! For awhile there I thought maybe peak oil had actually gotten someone, caused you to become Amish maybe!!

I was worried.....considering how poorly TOD took it and all.

 

[eagle1462010]

Natural Petroleum Seeps Release Equivalent Of Up To 80 Exxon Valdez Oil Spills -- ScienceDaily

Twenty years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez was exiting Alaska's Prince William Sound when it struck a reef in the middle of the night. What happened next is considered one of the nation's worst environmental disasters: 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the pristine Alaskan waters, eventually covering 11,000 square miles of ocean. Now, imagine 8 to 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. According to new research, that's how much oil has made its way into sediments offshore from petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point in the Santa Barbara Channel.

 

[eagle1462010]

Oil seeps and natural gas/methane have been around for a very very long time. It is a natural thing for eon's.................

Whether it be from movements in the earth's crust, aka earthquakes, or any number of normal environmental changes................

Methane and Natural Gas have been going on under the artic have been going on long long before anyone used oil at all.

So this water being flammable isn't exactly a new thing. The question is how much gas gets emitted during the process via fracking, and of that amount how much get's trapped as gas bubbles in the water table.....................

Gas via nature goes into water tables already. Fracking forces release of gas pockets by horizontal fracking to make holes for gas to escape so it can be collected.

Anyway, just pointing out some data.............

Now if you really want to look at one issue of fracking it's WATER usage. It uses millions of gallons of water. So in areas prone to drought, it might not be the best thing unless they reuse the water as much as possible.

 

[eagle1462010]

Explore Shale. Marcellus Shale Development, Geology and Water.

How much water is used?

Each drill site requires between 3 and 5 million gallons of water per frack. Based on approximately 1500 horizontal wells fracked in 2011, Pennsylvania used about 12-20 million gallons of water per day for Marcellus Shale drilling, which represents approximately .5-.8% of the 9.5 billion gallons of water the state uses daily.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a place in Iraq near Kirkuk where the ground has been on fire for over 4000 years.

The Eternal Fire at Baba Gurgur | Amusing Planet

Baba Gurgur (literally "Father of Fire") is a large oil field near the city of Kirkuk which was the first to be discovered in Northern Iraq in 1927. Considered to be the largest oil field in the world until the discovery of the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia in 1948, Baba Gurgur is famous for its Eternal Fire located at the middle of its oil fields that is estimated to have been burning for over 4000 years.

 

[Samson]

The Kock Bros. aren't paying for shills this lazy.

Really? What are you paid for pimping The Church of Peak Oil?

Welcome back Jiggsy! For awhile there I thought maybe peak oil had actually gotten someone, caused you to become Amish maybe!!

I was worried.....considering how poorly TOD took it and all.

If you need to ask Jiggs if he's "pimping The Church of Peak Oil," you don't know Jiggs.

He is the Pope.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Nothing to see here. Fracking hurts nobody! We don't need no "Clean Water Act". Nothing to see here except cancer and god knows what else.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The Kock Bros. aren't paying for shills this lazy.

Really? What are you paid for pimping The Church of Peak Oil?

Welcome back Jiggsy! For awhile there I thought maybe peak oil had actually gotten someone, caused you to become Amish maybe!!

I was worried.....considering how poorly TOD took it and all.

LOL... The Oil Drum went into archive because all their main contributors started their own web sites, moron. Not because they doubt their message.

I'll ask again: Is oil production driven by a supply constraint model, or a demand constraint one?

 

[Mr. H.]

The Kock Bros. aren't paying for shills this lazy.

Really? What are you paid for pimping The Church of Peak Oil?

Welcome back Jiggsy! For awhile there I thought maybe peak oil had actually gotten someone, caused you to become Amish maybe!!

I was worried.....considering how poorly TOD took it and all.

LOL... The Oil Drum went into archive because all their main contributors started their own web sites, moron. Not because they doubt their message.

I'll ask again: Is oil production driven by a supply constraint model, or a demand constraint one?

Not only are you painfully academic, but you carry the obtuse to an extreme.

In short... fuck off, you progenitor of all that is moronic.

 

[RGR]

If you need to ask Jiggs if he's "pimping The Church of Peak Oil," you don't know Jiggs.

He is the Pope.

Nah, I asked him elsewhere to go back to the Church and get us someone who knows the subject matter, getting some low level acolyte who is limited to endless parroting isn't any fun. Next thing you know he'll be saying its peak oil...again...and the world is going to end...again...and he'll whip out yet more references that reality has put a smackdown on since Jiggsy became a convert.....I don't mind folks pimping peak oil, but I'd like to get one who isn't a parrot is all.

 

[RGR]

I was worried.....considering how poorly TOD took it and all.

LOL... The Oil Drum went into archive because all their main contributors started their own web sites, moron. Not because they doubt their message.

Wrong Jiggsy. You see, during the plenary session of last years Unconventional Resources Technology Conference one TOD editor and one TOD contributor were NAMED as having gotten it so wrong, and when the professionals are laughing at you that hard, it has NOTHING to do with blogs, but trying to salvage some remnant of credibility.

URTeC is a three way sponsorship, so the folks with the giggles were the petroleum engineers (SPE), the petroleum geologists (AAPG) and exploration geophysicists (SEG).

Where were you Jiggsy? It happened around 9:30 in the morning, Monday. I've got notes on it just waiting for when someone came along and tried to pretend that TOD folded for some other reason than the pertinent professionals had taken to giggling just a WEE bit too loudly in public.

I'll ask again: Is oil production driven by a supply constraint model, or a demand constraint one?

With the EIA and domestic modeling, it is supply constrained. Why, is there some energy organization more qualified in the US to handle answering such questions?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Wrong Jiggsy. You see, during the plenary session of last years Unconventional Resources Technology Conference one TOD editor and one TOD contributor were NAMED as having gotten it so wrong, and when the professionals are laughing at you that hard, it has NOTHING to do with blogs, but trying to salvage some remnant of credibility.

URTeC is a three way sponsorship, so the folks with the giggles were the petroleum engineers (SPE), the petroleum geologists (AAPG) and exploration geophysicists (SEG).

Where were you Jiggsy? It happened around 9:30 in the morning, Monday. I've got notes on it just waiting for when someone came along and tried to pretend that TOD folded for some other reason than the pertinent professionals had taken to giggling just a WEE bit too loudly in public.

Right back leaning on the unfalsifiable claim to buoy your self-rationalization, replete with a "trust me" story that reeks of classic RGR. "I was told at conference X by a high-ranking douche bag that..."

Convincing stuff, even without a link corroborating your claim. But considering how consistently dishonest you are on basic equations and data, forgive us for not buying your latest round of tripe for one second.

Just because ToD went down (for exactly the reason I said it did), there's still 10-20 other sites still advocating the same message. Conventional crude reached peak in 2005, and tepid growth is only maintaining an upward trajectory via desperate tight oil expansion. All while costs have tripled.

Any way you slice it, it's not a sustainable model.

With the EIA and domestic modeling, it is supply constrained.

Nice dishonest sidestep. I'm asking you, fraud. What do you believe? Does your horrid company do forecasts?

In any event, if your answer is "supply constrained," excellent. I'll remember that when I create my thread soon showing the oil majors cutting way back on capex.

Not much longer now, little scupper. Conventional will start to plummet, and no amount of chemical shakes under U.S. neighborhoods will offset the market panic.

 

[RGR]

Right back leaning on the unfalsifiable claim to buoy your self-rationalization, replete with a "trust me" story that reeks of classic RGR. "I was told at conference X by a high-ranking douche bag that..."

Well, a bit of a long winded way to say "us parrots don't go to conferences where oil and gas stuff is discussed, and our priests don't go either so they don't let us in on such knowledge because they don't have it either.

Sorry Jiggsy, when the pro's begin to bash TOD folks by name, its all over. And, obviously, that is what happened.

Convincing stuff, even without a link corroborating your claim.

I was in the audience. I recommend more learning, less parroting. AAPG is in a few weeks, you going to that one?

But considering how consistently dishonest you are on basic equations and data, forgive us for not buying your latest round of tripe for one second.

Buying it? You can't even REFUTE it because you, nor the editors/contributors being bashed, can bother to be seen with the professionals.

Just because ToD went down (for exactly the reason I said it did), there's still 10-20 other sites still advocating the same message.

TOD went down for exactly what they DIDN'T say, but which can be seen among those who knew its value all along. Which is, their opinion was worth exactly as much as they were paid for it.

Conventional crude reached peak in 2005, and tepid growth is only maintaining an upward trajectory via desperate tight oil expansion. All while costs have tripled.

Except for higher conventional production after 2005, and Hubbert didn't say anything about cost dependencies of oil production, why are you? You are smarter than him and can't even be bothered to show up at conferences to show it off?

Any way you slice it, it's not a sustainable model.

Sustainability is an illusion of time, and if you weren't a parrot you would understand why. Go back and ask your priests how to handle this one.

Nice dishonest sidestep. I'm asking you, fraud. What do you believe? Does your horrid company do forecasts?

All the time. Does yours? And considering the premiere energy statistical and analytic agency does supply based modeling, what is the fascination with less than premiere folks doing something else?

You aren't saying that ASPO is now going to run off and do models now, let alone demand based ones are you?

In any event, if your answer is "supply constrained," excellent. I'll remember that when I create my thread soon showing the oil majors cutting way back on capex.

Or cut and paste stuff from Gail and Kopits? It isn't as though YOU are smart enough to know anything about CapEx, did the priests clue you in on the latest distraction from TODs peak oil call 6 years ago and this is the newest talking point? No more Nosedives In The Desert! Or Twilights! Or Nuke The GOM!

Not much longer now, little scupper. Conventional will start to plummet, and no amount of chemical shakes under U.S. neighborhoods will offset the market panic.

Yeah, that is what you said when you thought peak oil was in 2010. And here you still are, playing kick the can..hard to do for a parrot, admittedly, but can't you please do get us someone who actually knows this stuff?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Well, a bit of a long winded way to say "us parrots don't go to conferences where oil and gas stuff is discussed, and our priests don't go either so they don't let us in on such knowledge because they don't have it either.

LOL... now I see why you took a few days off, when you usually respond within the hour.

Sorry Jiggsy, when the pro's begin to bash TOD folks by name, its all over. And, obviously, that is what happened.

LOL... the "pros" were guests contributors there. They merely decided their time was better suited at other sites. peakoilnet, resilience.org, zerohedge... on and on and on.

Regardless of your amusement that one (1) peak oil site went to archive status (not deleted, mind you), the premise hasn't changed. Your industry is doomed. ... Your butthurtedness manifests itself in telling ways. Do go on mocking ToD, though. Does wonders for your argument.

I was in the audience. I recommend more learning, less parroting. AAPG is in a few weeks, you going to that one?

Oh, is this where you throw a lot of pretentious terms out there about drill casings and pressure valves in a desperate effort to distract from a basic challenge regarding market cost?

Have at it. But that won't change anything either. My boot is firmly planted on your pencil neck. And you can either answer the relevant questions regarding what the market will bear, or keep dancing from it and the forum will know you have no answer for them. Just a lot of noise.

TOD went down for exactly what they DIDN'T say, but which can be seen among those who knew its value all along. Which is, their opinion was worth exactly as much as they were paid for it.

If you're insinuating it gave up because tight oil expansion and "conservation" is gonna save the world, you truly are living in a dream world.

This is gonna be fun.

Except for higher conventional production after 2005,

LOL... where crawling after leading a marathon is technically "moving forward." Got it.

and Hubbert didn't say anything about cost dependencies of oil production, why are you? You are smarter than him and can't even be bothered to show up at conferences to show it off?

I know I have you when you're left squawking about why your challenger doesn't just fly all over the country and attend power point presentations like you do. This is about all you're left with. Arrogance.

If your argument going forward is to just avoid the math and yell "I was there, you weren't" louder and louder, the forum as a whole is officially laughing at you. If you and your cronies are bandying solutions and forecast models that counter the narrative coming from , Martenson, Kopits, Post Carbon, and countless others, then you'd show those models. Link to some literature? A graph or two showing forecasts of production supply? ever? ... Instead, you just lazily spew "trust me, I was there" a whole lot ... LOL... tool.

Show the models. Or admit you're a fraud.

Sustainability is an illusion of time, and if you weren't a parrot you would understand why. Go back and ask your priests how to handle this one.

LOL... classic. More rope, coming right up.

Thank you for that. I'll cite it often.

All the time. Does yours? And considering the premiere energy statistical and analytic agency does supply based modeling, what is the fascination with less than premiere folks doing something else?

You aren't saying that ASPO is now going to run off and do models now, let alone demand based ones are you?

No, I'm glad you admitted it's supply based. Because it is. And you admitting that very thing is what's going to kill you going forward on this argument. ... Thanks for stepping in it.

I just wanted to be sure you weren't going to crow 'demand constrained' theory, else I'd be forced to prove a negative.

Or cut and paste stuff from Gail and Kopits?

Kopits, indeed. He kinda dropped a giant turd on your "no problem" narrative a few weeks ago at Columbia, didn't he? Great, great stuff. ... Before you ask, no I wasn't at that presentation either. The difference is video exists of it (curiously, not for yours), and the data remains, whether you trolls choose to believe it or not.

After all, I'm dealing with an industry zombie who asserts that EROEI doesn't matter.

Yeah, that is what you said when you thought peak oil was in 2010. And here you still are, playing kick the can..hard to do for a parrot, admittedly, but can't you please do get us someone who actually knows this stuff?

classic lol rgr... I joined this site in 2011. Are you pretending you know what I said before then? Wouldn't surprise me, your entire narrative is based on guess work and straw man argument.

But I am on record referring to 2015, the year 2008 JOE always forecast. We remain right on target. Awww...

Ah well. See you in my thread. Do brush up on your excuse-making and spin for the fact that the oil majors are dumping investment and assets. I want you to hit the ground running.

 

[RGR]

Sorry Jiggsy, when the pro's begin to bash TOD folks by name, its all over. And, obviously, that is what happened.

LOL... the "pros" were guests contributors there.

Which is exactly why, when they are being bashed by their peers, they needed to get rid of the dead albatross around their necks, lest the rest of their career mimic what happened to TOD.

When your peers are laughing at you Jiggsy (in your case...second graders intent on a career in cutting and pasting) its game over. And with TOD...it certainly was.

They merely decided their time was better suited at other sites. peakoilnet, resilience.org, zerohedge... on and on and on.

and which professionals went back to their oil companies, seismic companies, consulting firms, scientific and government agencies?

They went on to professional....blogger stuff?

Tell me Jiggs, if their opinion worth only what you pay to read it at all those blogging sites?

Do go on mocking ToD, though. Does wonders for your argument.

I don't have to. The petroleum engineers, petroleum geologists and exploratory geophysicists are doing it.

Who do you want to back up your sources now, the Muppets?

I know I have you when you're left squawking about why your challenger doesn't just fly all over the country and attend power point presentations like you do. This is about all you're left with. Arrogance.

One key difference. I am paid for my opinion on these topics.

A graph or two showing forecasts of production supply? ever? ... Instead, you just lazily spew "trust me, I was there" a whole lot ... LOL... tool.

Provided IEA cost supply in another thread. I've shown you my cost of supply, now go round up one of those blogging sites and show me theirs!

I just wanted to be sure you weren't going to crow 'demand constrained' theory, else I'd be forced to prove a negative.

You mean, parroting someone else trying to prove a negative...makes perfect sense coming from you..knock yourself out proving negatives big guy.

I am on record referring to 2015, the year 2008 JOE always forecast. We remain right on target. Awww...

Not if TOD is part of your "WE". They picked 2008. Oops.

Jiggsy Alert!