• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gasland’s Fracking Nonsense

macdoc said:
This very current and trying to dismiss it as flavour of the moment is irresponsible to say the least.

http://www.nature.com/news/is-fracking-behind-contamination-in-wyoming-groundwater-1.11543
Click to expand...

Yes, the anti enviroment pseudo skeptics (including some who post on this forum) want to portray the anti frack movement as just a bunch of kooks and CTers and so they ignore the engineering professor who says

Myth: Fluid migration from faulty wells is rare

Fluid migration is not rare. For example, industry researchers Watson and Bachu, in a Society of Petroleum Engineers paper in 2009, examined 352,000 Canadian wells and found sustained casing pressure and gas migration.

They found that about 12 per cent of newer wells leaked, considerably more than older wells. Yes, the industry’s own researchers found that a substantial percentage of wells leak initially, an even higher percentage of wells leak eventually, and now more wells are leaking than in the past; the process is getting worse, not better.
Click to expand...

here he is giving a presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUaR4rE2PIA
 
You are aware that fluids migrate all on their own with no human input whatsoever?

If Moses did see a burning bush in the wilderness "nec tamen consumebatur", it may well have been a natural gas seep ignited by lightning or a brushfire. It was fashionable in early Victorian days to set the Kimmeridge Shale cliffs on fire on the south coast of England. You can see oil bleeding out to this day. The same rock, at depth, is the source of much North Sea oil.
Over geological time, whole oilfields have naturally depleted by leakage to surface. Entire coalfields as big as some countries have been eroded away. This happens.
That's no excuse for soiling your own nest and there absolutely must be regulation of fraccing as there is of oil and gas drilling of any sort.
That there are failures of regulation is evident.
That there is immense hypocrisy displayed by those who want cheap oil and gas, but want it to come from someone else's territory is also evident.

Let's get the engineering right and the rules right. But first let's not lie to ourselves about why we are doing this. We are doing it because we want cheap energy.

Volunteers to pay three times as much for their gasoline in order to fund a better regulatory authority, one pace forward.
 
Soapy Sam said:
You are aware that fluids migrate all on their own with no human input whatsoever?

If Moses did see a burning bush in the wilderness "nec tamen consumebatur", it may well have been a natural gas seep ignited by lightning or a brushfire. It was fashionable in early Victorian days to set the Kimmeridge Shale cliffs on fire on the south coast of England. You can see oil bleeding out to this day. The same rock, at depth, is the source of much North Sea oil.
Over geological time, whole oilfields have naturally depleted by leakage to surface. Entire coalfields as big as some countries have been eroded away. This happens.
That's no excuse for soiling your own nest and there absolutely must be regulation of fraccing as there is of oil and gas drilling of any sort.
That there are failures of regulation is evident.
That there is immense hypocrisy displayed by those who want cheap oil and gas, but want it to come from someone else's territory is also evident.

Let's get the engineering right and the rules right. But first let's not lie to ourselves about why we are doing this. We are doing it because we want cheap energy.

Volunteers to pay three times as much for their gasoline in order to fund a better regulatory authority, one pace forward.
Click to expand...

Really? Oil companies are in their as usual windfall window at about $4 a gallon. The frackers have been blighting our countrysides for almost a decade under with little regulation.

The devil himself exempted fracking from regulation. They don't even have to say what chemicals they are using.

Unfortunately, these recommendations do not address the biggest loophole of all. In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Click to expand...

I think I even read that the US energy companies are exporting energy while profiting on imported oil.
 
Soapy Sam said:
You are aware that fluids migrate all on their own with no human input whatsoever?

If Moses did see a burning bush in the wilderness "nec tamen consumebatur", it may well have been a natural gas seep ignited by lightning or a brushfire. It was fashionable in early Victorian days to set the Kimmeridge Shale cliffs on fire on the south coast of England. You can see oil bleeding out to this day. The same rock, at depth, is the source of much North Sea oil.
Over geological time, whole oilfields have naturally depleted by leakage to surface. Entire coalfields as big as some countries have been eroded away. This happens.
That's no excuse for soiling your own nest and there absolutely must be regulation of fraccing as there is of oil and gas drilling of any sort.
That there are failures of regulation is evident.
That there is immense hypocrisy displayed by those who want cheap oil and gas, but want it to come from someone else's territory is also evident.

Let's get the engineering right and the rules right. But first let's not lie to ourselves about why we are doing this. We are doing it because we want cheap energy.

Volunteers to pay three times as much for their gasoline in order to fund a better regulatory authority, one pace forward.
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of the long term carbon cycle thanks.
I am also aware that all FF extraction involves releasing methane, after all it's what the canary in the coalmine was meant to detect and it's what they flare off on oil rigs. This is part of the reason methane concentration in the atmosphere is now 2 and a half times what it was before the industrial revolution.
It is Dr. Ingraffea's contention (who btw worked on the R&D of unconventional gas extraction) that up to 7% of the methane released by the fraccing process will end up in the atmosphere which means that fracced gas is as dirty in terms of GG releases as coal. That is above and beyond the local pollution caused by fraccing.
watch his presentation here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUaR4rE2PIA
 
Soapy Sam said:
You are aware that fluids migrate all on their own with no human input whatsoever?
................................................

Let's get the engineering right and the rules right. But first let's not lie to ourselves about why we are doing this. We are doing it because we want cheap energy.
Click to expand...

Another pay no attention to the chemicals we're using near your water table(behind the curtain).


Fracking is so obviously destructive to the environment and people(?) keep saying prove it.
 
macdoc said:
This very current and trying to dismiss it as flavour of the moment is irresponsible to say the least.

http://www.nature.com/news/is-fracking-behind-contamination-in-wyoming-groundwater-1.11543
Click to expand...
And what conclusions do you come to from this report.

From what I can see, after an admittedly brief scan of the extended abstract, the report does not demostrate that the physical fraccing of formations in the area are the cause of the contamination.

The conclusions that they made are that shallow aquifers were probably polluted by surface holding pits and that deeper aquifers were probably polluted by badly constructed (i.e., leaking) wells.

So not the fraccing of the formations, but, just as I and others have been saying in this thread, badly constructed leaking wells (remember Macondo? A badly constructed leaking well) and inadequate surface treatment/containment of produced and treating water are the main causes of concerns in aquifer pollution.
 
bit_pattern said:
Here's an extremely worrying development in the Australian fracking industry, too early to say definitively whether its caused by nearby CSG mining or not but as far as coincidences go it appears pretty damning

...
Click to expand...
Looks like there is not even a coincidence, since, two day after this video was presented, Origin (the gas company nearby) and the minister for Qld Natural Resources stated that there is no CSG drilling in the area.

Hell, the spot where the video was taken is known as the "Coal Hole".
Now there's the coincidence you're looking for.

Source - Brisbane Times 30, May

So again, just like that stupid movie, lots of "fun" video but little actual investigated evidence. Who cares about the real cause, as long as you can get "spectacular" video clips up on YouTube?

I've never said that this industry should be closely monitored, but the scaremongering by the uninformed deliberately misinforming does not help IMO.
 
Last edited:
And the apologism by the somewhat informed REALLY doesn't help get some teeth into the oversight.
NOT drilling until the regs are stiffened is a far safer approach despite it's negative impact on replacing coal as an electricity source.
Sensible jurisdictions have put the brakes on. With good reason.
 
macdoc said:
And the apologism by the somewhat informed REALLY doesn't help get some teeth into the oversight.
NOT drilling until the regs are stiffened is a far safer approach despite it's negative impact on replacing coal as an electricity source.
Sensible jurisdictions have put the brakes on. With good reason.
Click to expand...

fracking Cheney
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...racking-second

Quote:
Scientific advisory panels at the Department of Energy and the EPA have enumerated ways the industry could improve and have called for modest steps, such as establishing maximum contaminant levels allowed in water for all the chemicals used in fracking. Unfortunately, these recommendations do not address the biggest loophole of all. In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Congress needs to close this so-called Halliburton loophole, as a bill co-sponsored by New York State Representative Maurice Hinchey would do. The FRAC Act would also mandate public disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking across the nation.
Click to expand...

Knowing what you know now about the fracking process isn't it frightening that it's 2012 and our lawmakers are just getting around to discussing the removal of the exemption of fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
 
EHocking said:
...I've never said that this industry should [edit]not[/edit] be closely monitored, but the scaremongering by the uninformed deliberately misinforming does not help IMO.
Click to expand...
If you've read my past posts you would have realised that there was a word missing that totally changes the tone of my stance on the subject. Recent posts 106 and 117 for example.
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Looks like there is not even a coincidence, since, two day after this video was presented, Origin (the gas company nearby) and the minister for Qld Natural Resources stated that there is no CSG drilling in the area.

Hell, the spot where the video was taken is known as the "Coal Hole".
Now there's the coincidence you're looking for.

Source - Brisbane Times 30, May

So again, just like that stupid movie, lots of "fun" video but little actual investigated evidence. Who cares about the real cause, as long as you can get "spectacular" video clips up on YouTube?

I've never said that this industry should be closely monitored, but the scaremongering by the uninformed deliberately misinforming does not help IMO.
Click to expand...

Your source states that 4 pilot wells have been drilled in the area.
How can you be certain that the casings on these have not been badly constructed allowing methane to migrate up from deep shale layers to near the surface?
Is there any way of telling the difference between gas from sub-surface layers and gas from deep layers?
Unless there was very careful monitoring of the gas seepage into the river before the wells were drilled, how does anyone know that there hasn't been a significant increase ?
Why do you unskeptically accept the reassurances of the drilling companies?
Why do you characterise those concerned citizens who critisize fracking as delibertately misinforming scare mongers?

btw 2 quotes from Brisbane Times article,

The bubbling in the Condamine River near Chinchilla was most likely naturally occurring coal seam methane and not linked to coal seam gas mining, Queensland Natural Resources Minister Andrew Cripps said today.

"Speculation about the actual cause of bubbling gas in the Condamine River based on limited information is unhelpful and irresponsible and does not contribute to informed commentary on this industry," he said

So speculation is irresponsible unless of course you are a politician speculating that it's most likely not linked to coal seem gas mining:rolleyes:
 
bobwtfomg said:
Your source states that 4 pilot wells have been drilled in the area.
How can you be certain that the casings on these have not been badly constructed allowing methane to migrate up from deep shale layers to near the surface?
Click to expand...
You and I can only go on what the company states and that is that tests on the wells show that they are intact and no gas is/was being produced from or around them.

They have to make a legal statement to the regulatory body that this is so - and so far that regulatory body has not contradicted their statement.
ETA : Source of the above is from an Origin ASX (Australian Stock Exchange) statement. Not a good idea to lie in them.
Is there any way of telling the difference between gas from sub-surface layers and gas from deep layers?
Click to expand...
Not if the gas is from the same formation. If the gas's source are different coal seams/formations it may be possible to differentiate between the sources by analysing the gas's make up. Google "hydrocarbon fingerprinting".
Unless there was very careful monitoring of the gas seepage into the river before the wells were drilled, how does anyone know that there hasn't been a significant increase ?
Why do you unskeptically accept the reassurances of the drilling companies?
Click to expand...
Not unsceptically, but their anecdotal "evidence" is that locals have reported these types of leaks for the past 30+ years.
About as valid an anecdote as the YouTube video that has no provenance at all.
Oh, and those wells in the area were not fracced. This would be a matter of record with the regulatory body as well.
Why do you characterise those concerned citizens who critisize fracking as delibertately misinforming scare mongers?
Click to expand...
I only criticise those that deliberately misinform as scare mongers.

Without provenance, I could speculate that the YouTuber knew of the history of gas releasing into the Condamine River (if it is true) and has taken advantage of the current scaremongering about fraccing to put up an unsubstantiated claim that this is caused by CSG drilling.
btw 2 quotes from Brisbane Times article,

The bubbling in the Condamine River near Chinchilla was most likely naturally occurring coal seam methane and not linked to coal seam gas mining, Queensland Natural Resources Minister Andrew Cripps said today.

"Speculation about the actual cause of bubbling gas in the Condamine River based on limited information is unhelpful and irresponsible and does not contribute to informed commentary on this industry," he said

So speculation is irresponsible unless of course you are a politician speculating that it's most likely not linked to coal seem gas mining:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What speculation?
He repeated what Origin told him after they said they tested the well for gas leaks and that these pilot wells never produced gas.

He was commenting on the speculation by anti-CSG groups.....

Let's look at that.
Earlier in the day, NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham has seized upon the video, claiming it as proof the industry is unsafe in a statement released this morning.

"Gas bubbling up through a 5km stretch of the Condamine River is the worst case recorded so far of what appears to be pollution related to fracking for coal seam gas," Mr Buckingham said.

​
These were pilot wells that were never fracced and never produced gas.

This answers your previous question regarding my gripe about misinformation.

Here is a prime example of a "concerned citizen" bandwagonning on the fraccing debate and scaremongering by spreading misinformation.
 
Last edited:
oops....

Not only was the work suspect, reported the panel, but Dr. Groat himself was in a troubling conflict of interest.

“In studies of controversial topics, such as the impact on public health and the environment potentially stemming from shale-gas hydraulic fracturing, credibility hinges upon full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest by all participants and upon rigorous, independent reviews of findings. This study failed in both regards,” stated the panel, which released its findings Friday.
“Dr. Groat, failed to disclose his material financial relationship as a member of the board of directors of Plains Exploration and Production, a gas exploration and development company,” stated the panel, which was appointed to investigate after a non-profit group, the Public Accountability Initiative, raised questions about the independence of the research.
Click to expand...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nces-about-safety-of-fracking/article6142857/

two strikes......

still so sanguine?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom