U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-19-2015, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Buckeye
604 posts, read 795,760 times
Reputation: 1391

Advertisements

I worked in the oil fields of N.D. for a while (driving tankers). I always read with interest the latest fears of anti-frackers. This referenced article is typical in that it restates all the emotional fear triggers with very few facts. The study referenced in Vernal didn't come up with the results the anti-frackers want so it must be because of big oil influence in politics. Of course there's the usual reference to "Cheney" and "Halliburton" to stir the left wing Malthusians. The question posed in the title of the article is never answered. Since there's fracking and there's death then one must be causing the other although there's no reliable data supporting the thesis.

You like lower gas prices? Wait until the Feds rescind the outdated ban on selling u.s. oil in the world market...it's going to get better! The world is afloat in oil now thanks to these new fracking technologies. Of course this is another blow to the enviromaniacs who just a few short years ago were proclaiming we've reached peak oil and are soon to run out.

Damn, facts keep getting in the way of these emotional environmental outbursts!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2015, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
3,335 posts, read 4,023,899 times
Reputation: 6806
"Damn, facts keep getting in the way of these emotional environmental outbursts!"....facts? facts?....I didn't see any facts....were you gonna post some ?

Regards
Gemstone1
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Buckeye
604 posts, read 795,760 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
"Damn, facts keep getting in the way of these emotional environmental outbursts!"....facts? facts?....I didn't see any facts....were you gonna post some ?

Regards
Gemstone1
Might check out the EPA report on fracking for the 'facts' you seek:
“We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” the EPA observes in a 1,399-page report and multiple appendices. By mechanisms, the researchers mean the practice of injecting water and chemicals into shale at high pressure to extract oil or natural gas.

The report goes much further than drinking water in it's examination.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
3,335 posts, read 4,023,899 times
Reputation: 6806
Like this summation of the report ?

Or this one by researchers at Duke

Industry meddling in the EPA's business

or this quote from the EPA: About That EPA Fracking Report

That brings us to the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fracking report. To some observers the report seemed like a love-letter to the natural gas industry, but we’re sticking to our guns and calling it a cry for help — or better yet, a call for Congress to do its job and close a gaping loophole in federal water safety protections.

Last week, National Public Radio teased a statement out of EPA clarifying that the fracking report is a “state of the science” report, not a policymaking guide (just like we said, right?). Here’s the money quote from EPA:

EPA set out to conduct a national study to determine whether there was potential for impacts to drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and if so, to identify the drivers for those impacts. EPA did just that: this state-of-the-science draft assessment identifies specific instances where hydraulic fracturing activities have impacted drinking water resources, and most importantly, highlights key vulnerabilities to drinking water resources.

After EPA Fracking Report, Stanford to the Rescue...Sort Of

Regards
Gemstone1
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Buckeye
604 posts, read 795,760 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
Like this summation of the report ?

Or this one by researchers at Duke

Industry meddling in the EPA's business

or this quote from the EPA: About That EPA Fracking Report

That brings us to the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fracking report. To some observers the report seemed like a love-letter to the natural gas industry, but we’re sticking to our guns and calling it a cry for help — or better yet, a call for Congress to do its job and close a gaping loophole in federal water safety protections.

Last week, National Public Radio teased a statement out of EPA clarifying that the fracking report is a “state of the science” report, not a policymaking guide (just like we said, right?). Here’s the money quote from EPA:

EPA set out to conduct a national study to determine whether there was potential for impacts to drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and if so, to identify the drivers for those impacts. EPA did just that: this state-of-the-science draft assessment identifies specific instances where hydraulic fracturing activities have impacted drinking water resources, and most importantly, highlights key vulnerabilities to drinking water resources.

After EPA Fracking Report, Stanford to the Rescue...Sort Of

Regards
Gemstone1
The Duke study is an interesting read and includes:

"...Although dissolved methane in drinking water is not currently classified as a health hazard for ingestion, it is an asphyxiant in enclosed spaces and an explosion and fire hazard ...."
(remember the scene in the docufantasy Gasland? The film maker implied the flaming water from the kitchen sink was because of nearby fracking. It was another lie.)

The Duke report continues:
"Based on our data (Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids."

The Huffington Post "Green" article is a collection of quotes from environmental activists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. Apparently that organization has now switched resources from claiming that Alar is poisoning apples (perhaps you remember that bogus alarmist claim?) to anti-fracking rhetoric. Or it quotes other enviromaniac sources such as ProPublica with such headlines as "Chemicals.....MIGHT be From Fracking".

I often ignore work from the EPA (they're a little distracted right now given their latest make-work project in Colorado) but thought I'd refer to it because they are usually the Holy Grail for Malthusians.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
3,335 posts, read 4,023,899 times
Reputation: 6806
Thanks for reading...you are probably wise to take EPA reports with a healthy dose of salt, as with any arm of our current governmental system, they tend to be highly influenced by industry.

As for the injection of waste fracking fluids, the better part of which is unknown to the public..."I'm not a scientist"...but if a local landfill must have a bottom leach proof membrane, and will not allow the disposal of used paint or chemicals by a local resident, it stands to reason that fracking chemicals should also be considered as dangerous and not be disposed of underground, next to our drinking water. Just released by Halliburton, fracking ingredients and the US MSDS safety sheets for each chemical in their particular mix....a quick glance at a few of those safety sheets tells me I should have the right to insist that a driller not willfully dispose of those chemicals where my drinking water is stored. Fracking fluids are injected at a PSI pressure in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands....and oil/gas extraction depends on "fracturing the rock"....how can drinking water contamination not occur under those pressures ?

Regards
Gemstone1
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Buckeye
604 posts, read 795,760 times
Reputation: 1391
Most aquifers are at a depth of 50 to 100 ft. Fracked wells in N.D. (of which I am familiar) are at least 10,000 feet and not unusual to go to a depth of 25,000. Would I worry about anything over 2 miles below? Ppresuming leaching occurs in a downward direction (or even parallel). There's probably more of a chance, although damn near impossible, for water to contaminate the frack sites than vice versa.

A word on the pressure of fracking fluids; there is a common misconception that it is the force of fluid that causes the cracking (or fracturing) of the rock. Actually that is only a very small part. Once the hole is drilled there is a 'fire wire' driven into the length of the drilled hole (which is at least 10,000 feet down and then horizontally for the same distance). At spaces of about 1,000 feet along this wire are explosives. These are detonated causing more fissures. Then a manufactured 'sand' is pumped into the hole along with the fluids and this 'sand' keeps fractures open for oil and gas to seep into the hole from where it is pumped to the surface (along with much of the fluid). The fluid, by the way, is primarily water. When this mixture of oil and fluid reaches the top it is separated and pumped into tanks.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top