In Drought-Stricken Texas, Drillers Use Billions Of Gallons Of Water For Fracking

[TeyshaBlue]

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.

You and GGA have given me cancer and the aids with your puns this week.

[Sec24Row7]

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.

No... I found it funny that a 1.1 million procedure sample size without incident in texas wasn't enough "proof".

If that isn't, what is?

Which is why I compared it to the Deistic question... where no "proof" is ever enough for either side.

[MannyIsGod]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I just found this and its pretty new so its been written in the current climate. I'm going to give it a read and figured maybe some here might like to.

http://136.142.82.187/eng12/history/...1/pdf/1267.pdf

[TeyshaBlue]

Is it scientifically unfeasible to test whether or not there is contamination from fracking?

fify.

[ElNono]

fify.

Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

No... I found it funny that a 1.1 million procedure sample size without incident in texas wasn't enough "proof".

If that isn't, what is?

Which is why I compared it to the Deistic question... where no "proof" is ever enough for either side.

I see. Well I'm going to educate myself on the method since its very relevant to many things I'm currently studying regarding water. Once I do that I'll have more to contribute to this thread. I just personally view water as a more precious resource than any fossil fuel at this time by a quite wide margin.

[Sec24Row7]

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.

Except theirs is a perennial use and fraccing is a finite use...

Shrug... they are just using over 10 times the water to irrigate corn to make ethanol that is 75% as efficient by volume and an energy negative to produce... but hey... yeah it's a red herring

[ChumpDumper]

Which of us are for corn-based ethanol?

Show of hands.

[ChumpDumper]

That's why it's a red herring.

[SnakeBoy]

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.

This is true but the long term water issue exists with or without fracking. The op was not an effort to address our long term water issues.

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I just found this and its pretty new so its been written in the current climate. I'm going to give it a read and figured maybe some here might like to.

http://136.142.82.187/eng12/history/...1/pdf/1267.pdf

That's a pretty cool link, Manny.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

That would make more sense if droughts adhered to some kind of schedule.

[Blake]

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...

This is the exemption in a nuts :

Congress provided for exclusions to UIC authority (SDWA § 1421(d)), however, with the most recent language added via the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

“The term ‘underground injection’ –

(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
(B) excludes –
(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.”

While the SDWA specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from UIC regulation under SDWA § 1421 (d)(1)........

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwate...s_hydroreg.cfm

I'd like to know why it's excluded from regulation.

[Sec24Row7]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

Ask landowners and mineral owners who are being paid for their water and produced hydrocarbons if they want it to stop...

[TeyshaBlue]

"contrasting data"

what contrasting data is there that fracking is harmless to water supplies?

If it's harmless, why was fracking explicitly exempted from Clean Water rules by head?

btw...you can't exempt something that was never a part of the rules to begin with, bot.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is the exemption in a nuts :



I'd like to know why it's excluded from regulation.

It was never a part of the regulation to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

Except theirs is a perennial use and fraccing is a finite use...

Shrug... they are just using over 10 times the water to irrigate corn to make ethanol that is 75% as efficient by volume and an energy negative to produce... but hey... yeah it's a red herring

Well if you want to go that route crops are also a renewable resource and this resource is finite.

I don't support the use of corn for ethanol in any way shape or form so it is a total red herring.

[MannyIsGod]

Sec, let me start to make your argument for you without using a red herring...

Compared to other energy sources, the use of water for natural gas production is minimal- only 10% of what it would require to produce a comparable amount of energy from coal.

[Blake]

It was never a part of the regulation to begin with.

great, then why did Congress take the time in 2005 to specifically exclude hydarulic fracturing from regulation?

[ChumpDumper]

That would make more sense if droughts adhered to some kind of schedule.

Do droughts not end?

Ask landowners and mineral owners who are being paid for their water and produced hydrocarbons if they want it to stop...

Why would I ask them?

I'll ask a guy who isn't allowed to water his lawn if he wants to water it. How do you think that will go?

[MannyIsGod]

That paper seems to definitely side that while fracking has risks it is a definitely safe technology. I want to read much more before making up my mind but that paper does present your side of the situation, Sec.

[TeyshaBlue]

great, then why did Congress take the time in 2005 to specifically exclude hydarulic fracturing from regulation?

As was disclosed in Manny's link, the 05 act was reworded for clarification. The act intended to regulate injection wells specific to disposal and waste management, which fracturing is not. This is an exclusion for clarfication as much as anything else. Nerfariousness is usually implied.

[TeyshaBlue]

Do droughts not end?

As far as I know, they generally do. But to blithely suggest we just put off a well development schedule without the ability to know for how long, is not entirely practical from the company's forcasting standpoint.

[ChumpDumper]

As far as I know, they generally do. But to blithely suggest we just put off the sale of fireworks without the ability to forcast how long, is not entirely practical from the fireworks company's forcasting standpoint.

Tough .

It's not like the gas is going anywhere.

If other economic activity is affected by drought regulations, why not this?