Gasland’s Fracking Nonsense

saw the movie this weekend. it didn't look very trustworthy but that fraccing stuff doesnt sound good aswell.
 
Nihilianth said:
It's pretty easy finding one of those sites which are complete eyesores. They are poppping up all over the place.
Click to expand...
My point was that I bet MacDoc drove there. There seems to be a mismatch between the desire for energy- specifically oil and gas- with the unwillingness to accept that producing it has hazards. This results in NIMBYism- which I will come back to later in this reply. I apologise, by the way, for the long delay, but I just spent a month on a gas werll in central Asia, being just the sort of out-of-state migrant worker you seem to abhor.

Solar, wind, water, and ethanol. Lycoming County proposed plopping a windfarm in the north-east corner of the county. It got shot down by a bunch of really off-the-wall tree-huggers, because supposedly it put some bird at risk.
Click to expand...
Ironically many NIMBYs in my country are most vehement in their opposition to wind farrms , which are sprouting everywhere.
I could care less about one type of bird, if it could save having a bunch of forest land carved up.

Switch grass is a type of grass which can be grown in just about any environment, and is one of the most efficient sources of producing ethanol. You can grow the stuff on the sides of highways, and in the middle section between the north-south and east-west roadways.
Click to expand...
Running cars on biomass derived ethanol has been tried- notably in Brazil. It has met with limited success. As with any agriculture, the process of fertilising, growing, harvesting and processing any crop all have environmental costs.

That's like comparing apple-to-oranges. The potential devestation of nuclear plants is likely greater than then potential devestation of carving up forest lands. But the risks are no where near the same. Nuclear power plants are, for the most part, perfectly safe. Subsurface fracturing inherently destroys the land around it. Or seems to, due to the incredibly piss-poor job Haliburton does at respecting the land they are using.
Click to expand...
As I said, I work for Halliburton. I have to take waste management and environmental awareness training courses and I'm required to adhere to very strict controls imposed by both Halliburton and our customers as well as government agencies. Maybe it's different where you are. But I doubt it.
If you have specific complaints against Halliburton, post ofr PM me the data. I'll see it gets reported.
Whose burning whale oil?
Click to expand...
Nobody- thanks, ironically, to the petroleum industry, who made whale oil obsolete as a fuel and lubricant , forty years before anyone ever heard of environmental activism.
Coal is not exactly a viable source of fuel anymore either.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. In the case of the USA, coal is your major fuel for the next hundred years. Much of it will be processed to produce gas.
There is the whole global warming issue (which is a completely separate debate altogether.) There is the issue of the devastation that coal mining leaves behind for local areas. Look up Centralia, Mt. Carmel, and Shamockin PA, as examples of just how bad coal mining is.
Click to expand...
I grew up in the Central Scottish Coalfield, thanks. I know what mining communities are like.
And this is a great point. We need to stop using up our oil and gas at such an obscene rate.

Not sure what you mean by "other people's" oil and gas. Or "they have to find their own." The gas that is being drilled up out of PA is not being used in PA. It is going all over, not just PA. This is true of all energy resources that are not natural.
Click to expand...
You are strangely parochial in your attitude to energy.
Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. Iraq. Libya. Indonesia. Nigeria.

Other people. Countries whose populations are modernising and growing and just might want that oil themselves in a generation or so.
But Americans burned it. Because it was cheaper and environmentally easier to do that, than to produce their own.
Where did you think the United States gets it's cheap oil? Texas?

By the way, I don't blame you personally for the gas guzzling habits of all Americans, so sorry if I seem harsh. But do consider , before you object to energy production in your own home area, the effects your reluctance may have on other people around the world, whose governments are even less fit to make decisions than yours or mine.

But do, by all means, monitor your local government and bitch like hell if you think they are lax, or in the pockets of anyone. That's not just your right. It's your duty.
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
It's pretty easy finding one of those sites which are complete eyesores. They are poppping up all over the place.
Click to expand...
My point was that I bet MacDoc drove there. There seems to be a mismatch between the desire for energy- specifically oil and gas- with the unwillingness to accept that producing it has hazards. This results in NIMBYism- which I will come back to later in this reply. I apologise, by the way, for the long delay, but I just spent a month on a gas werll in central Asia, being just the sort of out-of-state migrant worker you seem to abhor.

Solar, wind, water, and ethanol. Lycoming County proposed plopping a windfarm in the north-east corner of the county. It got shot down by a bunch of really off-the-wall tree-huggers, because supposedly it put some bird at risk.
Click to expand...
Ironically many NIMBYs in my country are most vehement in their opposition to wind farrms , which are sprouting everywhere.
I could care less about one type of bird, if it could save having a bunch of forest land carved up.

Switch grass is a type of grass which can be grown in just about any environment, and is one of the most efficient sources of producing ethanol. You can grow the stuff on the sides of highways, and in the middle section between the north-south and east-west roadways.
Click to expand...
Running cars on biomass derived ethanol has been tried- notably in Brazil. It has met with limited success. As with any agriculture, the process of fertilising, growing, harvesting and processing any crop all have environmental costs.

That's like comparing apple-to-oranges. The potential devestation of nuclear plants is likely greater than then potential devestation of carving up forest lands. But the risks are no where near the same. Nuclear power plants are, for the most part, perfectly safe. Subsurface fracturing inherently destroys the land around it. Or seems to, due to the incredibly piss-poor job Haliburton does at respecting the land they are using.
Click to expand...
As I said, I work for Halliburton. I have to take waste management and environmental awareness training courses and I'm required to adhere to very strict controls imposed by both Halliburton and our customers as well as government agencies. Maybe it's different where you are. But I doubt it.
If you have specific complaints against Halliburton, post ofr PM me the data. I'll see it gets reported.
Whose burning whale oil?
Click to expand...
Nobody- thanks, ironically, to the petroleum industry, who made whale oil obsolete as a fuel and lubricant , forty years before anyone ever heard of environmental activism.
Coal is not exactly a viable source of fuel anymore either.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. In the case of the USA, coal is your major fuel for the next hundred years. Much of it will be processed to produce gas.
There is the whole global warming issue (which is a completely separate debate altogether.) There is the issue of the devastation that coal mining leaves behind for local areas. Look up Centralia, Mt. Carmel, and Shamockin PA, as examples of just how bad coal mining is.
I grew up in the Central Scottish Coalfield, thanks. I know what mining communities are like.
And this is a great point. We need to stop using up our oil and gas at such an obscene rate.

Not sure what you mean by "other people's" oil and gas. Or "they have to find their own." The gas that is being drilled up out of PA is not being used in PA. It is going all over, not just PA. This is true of all energy resources that are not natural.
Click to expand...
Yoou are strangely parochial in your attitude to energy.
Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. Iraq. Libya. Indonesia. Nigeria.

Other people. Countries whose populations are modernising and growing and just might want that oil themselves in a generation or so.
But Americans burned it. Because it was cheaper and environmentally easier to do that, than to produce their own.
Where did you think the United States gets it's cheap oil? Texas?

By the way, I don't blame you personally for the gas guzzling habits of all Americans, so sorry if I seem harsh. But do consider , before you object to energy production in your own home area, the effects your reluctance may have on other people around the world, whose governments are even less fit to make decisions than yours or mine.

But do, by all means, monitor your local government and bitch like hell if you think they are lax, or in the pockets of anyone. That's not just your right. It's your duty.
Click to expand...
 
Soapy Sam said:
Other people. Countries whose populations are modernising and growing and just might want that oil themselves in a generation or so.
But Americans burned it. Because it was cheaper and environmentally easier to do that, than to produce their own.
Where did you think the United States gets it's cheap oil? Texas?

By the way, I don't blame you personally for the gas guzzling habits of all Americans, so sorry if I seem harsh. But do consider , before you object to energy production in your own home area, the effects your reluctance may have on other people around the world, whose governments are even less fit to make decisions than yours or mine.

But do, by all means, monitor your local government and bitch like hell if you think they are lax, or in the pockets of anyone. That's not just your right. It's your duty.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I haven't seen the movie. It appears many of its truth claims are suspect, but I don't think it matters. From what I understand, these arguments against natural gas typically miss the big picture.

My certainly limited and potentially flawed understanding is that burning natural gas produces significantly less greenhouse warming potential than coal. I know a recent study has indicated this may not be true, at least over a ~ 20 year period, but this study is under debate. Obviously, altered premises will impact conclusions.

But conclusions for now seem rather obvious. The real benefits of natural gas are that it's global, climatic impact is far less than coal's, proven reserves are strong, and production is relatively inexpensive. Natural gas can buy us time. We need time to develop and deploy efficient, clean energy infrastructure.

But the sum of its benefits is also its cost; we may be seduced into complacency by its profit potential. Proven reserves are already strong and will likely only increase as poles thaw. Production is already profitable, and costs are likely to decrease as technology advances. Markets will be inclined to exploit the resource for all its potential profit. And that's a real cost, because we don't have time.

Critiques of localized ecosystem disruption obscure the larger picture. They ignore reality (we need fuel, one way or another), and they ignore real risks (profits may tantalize us into inaction). And that's not good. Critiques should focus on cost:benefit ratios. Critiques should weigh local impacts against global impacts. Local impacts aren't good, but reducing severity of global extinctions and climate disruption seems far more important. In the face of global consequence, it seems local disruption is favorable.

With a comprehensive, reality-based energy policy, natural gas may be a life saver, literally. But we don't have that. And without it, I fear it will have the opposite effect. I fear it will ultimately allow humans to emit more. Energy infrastructure has been driven by markets. Without strong regulation, I don't see this changing. And I don't see strong regulation in our near future. So it's up to markets, for now, and markets will likely chose short-term profit over long-term consequence. Even if long-consequence isn't really that long-term, and even if short-term profits drown in a sea of long-term consequence.

I hope I'm wrong. I could be. It's a complex issue, and I'm not an expert. But my pessimism seems directly correlated with my understanding. The more I learn, the worse I think our chances are.
 
@ Soapy Sam:

Don't count me out of this discussion yet. I would like to respond to some of the points you made, but want to do so with some thought and clarity.
 
No problemski. Take your time. That's the beauty of chat boards. I'll be in and out over the next few days, as we are moving house. (Over to the Lothians, where the oil shale industry is as old as "The Origin of Species".
Incidentally, I have no personal experience of shale frac jobs, but from what I understand of the method, the comments made by AlBell and EHocking are correct- it's much like any well till the production stage- and not too different even then. Fracturing itself is not a new technique, nor is gravel packing; it's just one that has gained a lot in popularity in the last decade, as easier production options increasingly run out.
 
The link won't work for me.
If done right, drilling should leave very little surface evidence; as with any cleanup, the result depends how much time , trouble and money is spent. I could take you to producing wells that you would be unaware of till you were within thirty feet- no more footprint than a garden shed. But not everyone, everywhere is held to that standard.
As for damage at depth- it can happen. Generally, the people who try to keep things right on surface try to keep it right subsurface too. Sloppy ain't good.
 
Soapy Sam said:
The link won't work for me.
If done right, drilling should leave very little surface evidence; as with any cleanup, the result depends how much time , trouble and money is spent. I could take you to producing wells that you would be unaware of till you were within thirty feet- no more footprint than a garden shed. But not everyone, everywhere is held to that standard.
As for damage at depth- it can happen. Generally, the people who try to keep things right on surface try to keep it right subsurface too. Sloppy ain't good.
Click to expand...

A number of the gas companies already went bankrupt, due to the sloppiness, and public outcry against them.

I can see your point. Survival of the fittest, and all that jazz. If they take care of the environment, they should remain in good standing. Unfortunately, it only takes one major spill to completely wreck the delicate local environment... :(

ETA: It's a photo of the on-going booming construction industry, completely transforming the downtown area.
 
Last edited:
One spill can ruin anyones day, but the pipelines in out contry are a greater concern, we use energy, and the consequences need to be considered. No consequences, no energy.

Burning coal is about the worst at this time, and clean coal seems unlikely.

If ground water contamination is considered then fracking is no worse than most.

In my county they store a lot of natural gas, some wells are unusable, but the gas company pays to get them water.

(It comes out of the well all fizzy and flamable.)
 
Last edited:
OMGturt1es said:
I haven't seen the movie. It appears many of its truth claims are suspect, but I don't think it matters. From what I understand, these arguments against natural gas typically miss the big picture.
Click to expand...

Looks like some claims in the movie may turn out accurate. A new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper finds methane contamination in groundwater sampled from wells within about 1 KM of gas wells. Chemical and isotopic analyses indicate that the methane was formed at depth. Science has a quick write-up (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/study-high-tech-gas-drilling-is-.html?etoc), and the article is available online (http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf). I haven't read the article yet, but I'll try to this evening.
 
Last edited:
OMGturt1es said:
Looks like some claims in the movie may turn out accurate. A new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper finds methane contamination in groundwater sampled from wells within about 1 KM of gas wells. Chemical and isotopic analyses indicate that the methane was formed at depth. Science has a quick write-up (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/study-high-tech-gas-drilling-is-.html?etoc), and the article is available online (http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf). I haven't read the article yet, but I'll try to this evening.
Click to expand...
I've not read through the whole thing, but I'm a little suspicious that nearly all the "active" water well sampling is centred on Dimock.

It is well known that the Dimock water has been contaminated by badly constructed gas wells and surface spills.

Just a gut reaction, I'll have to read further to see if this is addressed.

ETA: Some observations from page 4 (of 5) (my emphasis)

Methane migration through the 1 to 2km thick geological formations that overlie the Marcellus and Utica shales is less likely as a mechanism for methane contamination than leaky well casings, but might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported... and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned over the last century and a half.

​
So natural migration is less likely than a leaky well.
Fracturing might be a cause, but so could old uncased (i.e., "leaky") wells.

My quick opinion? This does not support the accussation that fraccing is causing migration of natural gas from depth to surface aquifers.

Further, the data selection has been biased due to higher rate of "contaminated" samples taken from the Dimock area where there is known contamination from badly constructed, and/or leaky, wells.
 
Last edited:
what do they know :garfield:

France to ban fracking of fossil fuels

By Peggy Hollinger in Paris

Published: May 11 2011 22:39 | Last updated: May 11 2011 23:06

French lawmakers have voted to ban a controversial technique used to extract shale gas and oil that opponents say contaminates the environment.

If the vote by the lower house of parliament passes the Senate next month, France will be the first country to ban hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. The process injects water, chemicals and sand into rock formations to break them open and extract previously unattainable fossil fuel deposits.

The overwhelming vote by the National Assembly follows months of protest across France against a technique that environmentalists say threatens to pollute the water table. Many were outraged at the beginning of the year when it was discovered that several exploration permits had been granted without public consultation. The issue has become highly political as the government prepares for a difficult presidential campaign next year.
Click to expand...

more

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/907fd72c-7c06-11e0-9b16-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1M6Jisofu
 
ThunderChunky said:
Who wants to play "name the fallacy?"
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I don't recall any poster here claiming that currently there are no environmental problems or pollution hazards with the manner in which the US allows gas drilling to be practiced in the USA and that the US regulatory and government bodies have not been a contributing factor in allowing this pollution to continue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom