Fracking Rant

ROTFLMAO, climate change????? Yea the name had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" due to lack of "Global Warming".

Please keep barking up this tree. It gets funnier the longer you do it. I can use all the laughs I can get.

 

and to the idiots who will reply, on cue, "what?? you don't believe in science???", you would not know science if it bit you on the butt!!!!!

 

The article at that link does pretty much sum up the actual state of research, understanding, and bull-headed drilling that we're at right now.

They're definitely trying to increase production at a much faster pace than the research is growing. We don't have decent production models or enough data to history match to tune reservoir simulators. Lab work on shale and how they fracture, the mechanics of gas release are only just not starting. I don't know of too many labs that have equipment to handle and study production from shales like they can with sedimentary rocks (sandstones and carbonates) or from sands. We know how to fracture it, but it's too early to understand the gas production behavior.

It's a policy problem that is allowing the companies to drill and fracture like crazy at the moment. A change needs to happen there to delay the growth.

 

Say hi to Chrystal, and Diamond for me

 

Speak of the devil. Siemens just purchased Dresser-Rand. I guess they got tired of sitting idly by while their American counterpart, General Electric, acquired new technology and profits in the US onshore shale boom.

 

It's encouraging to see leaders of some big companies moving toward, even if slowly, a greener footprint for our children sake. The Science denier will slowly fade into an extreme position, as so often happen with folks not seeing reality. Good news for people of this earth.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ec-says-link-with-climate-skeptics-wrong.html

http://fortune.com/2014/09/22/apples-ceo-tim-cook-sounds-the-alarm-on-climate-change/

http://www8.hp.com/hpnext/posts/how...eating-sustainable-supply-chain#.VCGNAPldVrI/

 

Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution

By KEVIN BEGOS Associated Press Sep 16, 2014, 6:00 PM

PITTSBURGH — The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at a site in western Pennsylvania.

The Department of Energy report, released Monday, was the first time an energy company allowed independent monitoring of a drilling site during the fracking process and for 18 months afterward. After those months of monitoring, researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas stayed about 5,000 feet below drinking water supplies.

Scientists used tracer fluids, seismic monitoring and other tests to look for problems, and created the most detailed public report to date about how fracking affects adjacent rock structures.

The fracking process uses millions of gallons of high-pressure water mixed with sand and chemicals to break apart rocks rich in oil and gas. That has led to a national boom in production, but also to concerns about possible groundwater contamination.

But the Energy Department report is far from the last word on the subject. The department monitored six wells at one site, but oil or gas drilling at other locations around the nation could show different results because of variations in geology or drilling practices. Environmentalists and regulators have also documented cases in which surface spills of chemicals or wastewater damaged drinking water supplies.

"There are a whole wealth of harms associated with shale gas development" separate from fracking, said Maya K. van Rossum, of the Delaware Riverkeeper group. She mentioned methane gas leaks, wasteful use of fresh water and air pollution, and said the Energy Department study confirms a point that the Riverkeeper has been making: that faulty well construction is the root cause of most problems, not fracking chemicals migrating up through rocks.

A separate study published this week by different researchers examined drilling sites in Pennsylvania and Texas using other methods. It found that faulty well construction caused pollution, but not fracking itself.

Avner Vengosh, a Duke University scientist involved with that study, just published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said in an email that it appears the Energy Department report on the Pennsylvania site is consistent with their findings.

The leading industry group in Pennsylvania said the Energy Department study reaffirms that hydraulic fracturing "is a safe and well-regulated technology." Marcellus Shale Coalition president Dave Spigelmyer said in an email that the study reflects "the industry's long and clear record of continuously working to enhance regulations and best practices aimed at protecting our environment."

The Energy Department report did yield some surprises. It found that the fractures created to free oil or gas can extend as far as 1,900 feet from the base of the well. That's much farther than the usual estimates of a few hundred feet. The Energy Department researchers believe that the long fractures may have followed existing fault lines in the Marcellus Shale or other formations above it.

The department study also ran into problems with the manmade markers meant to track possible long-term pollution. The Energy Department said it was able to track the markers for two months after fracking, but then that method had to be abandoned when it stopped working properly.

———

Online: http://1.usa.gov/1u21vuL

 

^ http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/landmark-fracking-study-finds-water-pollution-25539364

 

So well construction is the root of many of the pollution. Poorly constructed well can't withstand the pressure from franking. The process is broken until as a whole it is safe.

how common is the well problem?

 

Nope.

 

Nope about what?

Well construction isn't a root of many of the pollution?
No pollution happen when you frack with poorly constructed well?

 

The main "problem" is completely unrelated to fracking, that's the point you seem to somehow still be missing. The only "contamination" related to the process of fracking is when there is a surface spill or when the seismic activity shakes up someone's water well and makes the water temporarily cloudy.....but that second one isn't actually contamination.

 

"The process is broken"

 

Enlighten me - cause I do not understand this.

If wells construction is poor, will fracking cause water to be polluted? I'm under the impression that fracking introduces stress and pressure that can cause these badly constructed well to be polluted.

If so, then before fracking, weak wells need to be strengthen. No?

 

No the contamination comes from bad wells whether there is fracking or not

 

If we are talking about people who don't know correct terminology or the processes for what they're opposing I think the group represented by the video in this post takes the grand prize.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9238389&postcount=1

 

Basso,
Why is this a rant? It is because the OP of your post wants to show off

Let me first say that I largely agree with him. I'm not qualified (by his obnoxious description of who is qualified to talk to him), but I do have resources in my company and knowledge at my finger tips to know he's not the final say. Not even close

Do y'all wanna read an educated lib who you know, who's fine with fracking

Fracking is fine in the regions who have the water to use and on a per well basis

I know this topic (because it's my business) so I'd never write sumpin so rigid like your OP did

And he's right on several counts. His main point, "this is no different than other wells" is pretty much true

Fracking is not new; the horizontal drilling is new.

Now I'm from a company who makes a living helping Fortune 500s be more sustainable, I don't have much problem with lack of knowledge like the OP writer said. Dude is just showing off to ppl he can WOW! But he's not mentioning the water consumption of some regions and the sheer increase of odds that he writes off as "bad well casings"


But me and OP's writer will never be able to discuss this

Will we?

 

Can you frack without injection wells? Would you need to create injection well to frack?