Reply With Quote
what's your opinion on this question:
None of this info can be found on thinkprogrs.borg so the bot will never grok what youre talking about.
what's your opinion on this question:
#1...you dont drill wells by fracking. This is usually is done, if necessary at all, during the completion. Also, not all frac jobs are liquid. Ive overseen quite a few nitrogen frac jobs and even a few ballistic ones.
Since, by your own admission, you have no data one way or the other, its just natural to assume that there is malfeasance afoot and leave it at that, eh?
To be clear:
From what I have read in professional journals the method, when used properly, is pretty safe, so far.
There are some fairly alarming anectodes about methane contamination of water tables, that should be studied to get some more data.
We need natural gas, and this is a promising technique to increase supply very markedly for a few years.
Personally, I don't worry too much about it, but the thing that concerns me is the lack of rigorous scientific study about the longer term effects, or even some of the more short to medium term risks.
I would also hope that there is some decent governmental oversight of the process to prevent bad actors of all sorts from ing things up out of greed/ignorance.
I would hate for us to rush into this headlong for a short-term benefit, then ten or twenty years down the line, find that we missed some of the dangers. Not that this should stop us from drilling, but I just don't think we have a solid handle on what the long term affects are.
1.1 million wells since 1949 not a long enough study or big enough sample size?
http://www.heartland.org/environment...ure_Bills.html
Activists Targeting Fracking
Energy production advocates emphasize the importance of distinguishing between legislation that promotes responsible energy production and laws that would discourage it. Environmental activist groups opposed to increasing energy production have been particularly hostile to fracking during the past decade as technological advances have made the practice much more economical, which has in turn opened up vast new domestic energy reserves.
“The risks from fracking are extremely low,” says Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs at the Colorado-based Western Energy Alliance. “Over 1.1 million wells have been fracked since 1949, and there has not been one do ented case of contaminated groundwater.”
“Environmental groups have worked very hard to raise concerns in the public that are not supported by any facts and have been continually disputed by state departments of environmental quality,” Sgamma explained. “The environmental lobby’s goal is federal control of the entire process that states have successfully regulated for over 60 years.”
This is a very important issue until we get out of this drought in the fall or sooner if we get some tropical systems over the summer.
Then subs ute "extract natural gas" for the word "drill". I am, by far, not an expert.
That doesn't mean my concerns shouldn't be addressed. If they can be reasonably addressed, then fine. I am not dogmatically opposed to this.
Fine. we can start by dropping the innuendo. Amateur producers is laughable. Banks dont finance the millions of dollars of drilling gear for amateurs.
lol paranoid much?
I'm just asking questions. I asked if there was any listing of fracking sites that used chemicals and those that didn't.
What's in the gel?
And I am sure I can completely trust the PR rep of the Western Energy Alliance to truthfully tell me if there had been a do ented case of contaminated groundwater?
Of the 1.1million wells, have all wells been done using the exact same technique? or is the current modern technique creating the boom something different?
Of the 1.1 million wells, how many of those have been drilled in the last ten years? 2-3% growth rates always produce those lovely geometric curves, and it is mathmatically certain that most of those wells have come in the last 10-20 years, making the widespread adoption of this a very recent event.
That kind of statistic is exactly the kind of thing a PR rep, charged with putting the best face on something would say, leaving out the above context.
Not exactly the kind of objective information I would prefer.
In other words, you have no evidence of groundwater contamination but you are going to stick to your guns and keep making it an issue.
Well drilling actually was much heavier in the 50's and 60's than it is now... 2-3% growth rates don't work on things that get exponentially harder to find with time...
Shales are a little different and have caused a e... but because of their huge expense... and rig restraints only 200 or so rigs has been the peak on a play at any given time...
hence 16000 in the barnett or heck maybe even 20000 so far...
less than 1000 in the eagle ford...
If one assumes that banks are responsible for 100% of all drilling financing, then that would rule out "amatuers" for the owners, leaving just the negligent and greedy.
If banks are not responsible for 100% of drilling financing, then one cannot logicaly exclude amatuers.
Given that you have to hire a lot of people quickly, it doesn't rule out opportunists that competant owners might be forced to hire.
Booms tend to produce a lot of people looking for jobs with little experience.
Not trying to be unreasonable, or unduly insinuating.
If it makes you feel better, then fine, exclude the potential for well-meaning amateurs. Pun intended.
I don't study it scientifically.
It seems to be a reasonably plausible risk, until some scientifically rigorous study can rule it out.
I'm not asking for the moon here, just some good data.
So yes, I am sticking to my guns.
Unless you happen to have the scientific proof that it is safe? Feel free to present it.
Blake,
I wasn't involved in lobbying for it to be exempted... nor have I read up on it enough to know.
All I can find online right now is a bunch of propaganda angry about it happening...
What I do know is that state regulatory agencies have been doing a fine job regulating for quite a long time, and federal oversight on state lands and mineral exploration seems unnecessary and overreaching.
You see what is happening with the permit process NOW on BLM and Federal land/offshore minerals... That's a disaster played purely for political reasons... I'm glad that the feds don't have a tool to do the same thing on private land/minerals.
Prove God doesn't exit eh? We going that route?
Actually its a very important issue beyond then too. Drought or not, areas west of the Mississippi have water on the top of the concerns list for the next century. The misuse of water supplies is worse, IMO, than not having a bit more natural gas.
Thank you. I really do appreciate the extra information and context.
So there is some long term wide-spread drilling that can provide some good data.
People complaining about this... many are farmers... who... use 10's of TRILLIONS of gallons of water to irrigate... so...
The assertion being made by the industry is:
Fracking is safe.
I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. A decent scientific look at the claim is all I really need to feel my concerns have been addressed.
Very valid point.
We can have all the water we want, if we are willing to pay more at the grocery store. But that is a whole other conversation.
(edit)
Actually that is exactly part of this conversation, duh.
What to do with water?
You think its wrong that you fracking needs to be proven safe in order to have its use allowed? Wow. I myself don't have much knowledge on fracking but I don't think that hurdle is anywhere near unreasonable much less impossible.
I'm no friend of many agricultural irrigation processes. Pretty much a classic red herring here. Pointing out another waste of water doesn't make other misuse any better.
Ok then... God DOES exist... is that what we are proving?
Is it scientifically unfeasible to test contamination from fracking?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions