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.
I'm well aware of the multitude of other perceived issues associated with fracking, but this seems like a step in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzlover
If there is a big fat lie in all of it, that lie is that frac'ing promises some "unlimited" supply of natural gas for this country. Gas wells in the shale where frac'ing is being used so extensively now don't produce gas in the same pattern as "conventional" gas wells. Frac'ing causes wells to produce fairly prolifically for a relatively short period of time, then the production drops off rapidly. Frac'ed wells that were predicted to be steady producers for decades when they were drilled a few years ago now are frequently seeing dramatic drops in production.
I'm curious - is this just the nature of shale reservoirs? Are they required to continuously frack more wells for the same reservoir as production of existing wells drops off?
I also live around fracking. I was so unaware of it, I read about it in 'American Way' magazine. I never saw any part of it (but it is about a 15 minute drive away from me...) nor heard any negative reports until NY started the drilling circus.
It's not all good, or all bad, but the anti people will SAY ANYTHING to scare new peeps into joining their side.
If they ban drilling in New York, I think we should all ask Yoko Ono to compensate the landowners.
"Once the deal becomes law, shale-gas deposits near drinking water aquifers will be prohibited. Furthermore, drilling companies will be forced to fulfil strict environmental regulations." [1]
Germany presently has an effective ban of fracking. That appears likely to change soon, but within restrictions.
Avoiding aquifers would eliminate the majority of fracking in Colorado, as centered along the Front Range, overlying the Denver Basin Aquifer. And that obviously isn't happening—or, rather, is.
"Once the deal becomes law, shale-gas deposits near drinking water aquifers will be prohibited. Furthermore, drilling companies will be forced to fulfil strict environmental regulations." [1]
Germany presently has an effective ban of fracking. That appears likely to change soon, but within restrictions.
Avoiding aquifers would eliminate the majority of fracking in Colorado, as centered along the Front Range, overlying the Denver Basin Aquifer. And that obviously isn't happening—or, rather, is.
From what I have read, when there is fracking in an area, it can contaminate the water bed, am I wrong?
This could lead to an increase in cancer rates over a period of time.
“You can drink it. We did drink it around the table, almost rituallike, in a funny way,” he told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “It was a demonstration…they’ve invested millions of dollars in what is a benign fluid in every sense.”…
— Colorado Governor Hickenlooper [1]
Yes, hydraulic fracturing operations can and have contaminated water resources. Whether they will in any given case depends on the circumstances. So not to imply that this is a given, only a possibility influenced by such aspects as the geology of the area and how such operations are conducted.
As alluded to previously, other nations have been far more careful than the United States or Colorado have thus far demonstrated in insuring there is little to no likelihood such contamination could occur. As also mentioned, the majority of fracking in Colorado has occurred along the Front Range north to northeast of Denver; that is also the location of the vital Denver Basin Aquifer. This aquifer may not be impacted, but industry practice to date provides little assurance it might not.
And, yes, fracking fluid is highly toxic. If composed primarily of water and sand, also a significant quantity of all sorts of nasty chemicals. Benzene, as I recall, is one, and I've detailed some of them in a post on this thread some time back.
In July of 2008 a nurse in the ER of Durango's Mercy Regional Center, Cathy Behr, fell ill after treating a patient. Involved in an oil field accident, he arrived with his clothes damp and reeking of some substance. Within minutes Ms. Behr had lost her sense of smell. It soon developed that the ER was locked down and the room ventilated by firefighters. She had not regained her sense of smell by the end her shift. A week later her heart, liver and lungs began to shut down. She spent 30 hours in intensive care. Apparently recovered, she still has problems breathing.
Presumably Ms. Behr is more sensitive to these chemicals than others, although certainly this not the only health related incident involving fracking fluid.
One might also understand that a single fracking well can use 5,000,000 gallons of water, sometimes less, or more. If but a small proportion of that, these chemicals used can measure in a single well something like 20,000 gallons.
Our Governor Hickenlooper would have one believe there are no health concerns from such activities. In apparently trying to outman former Transportation director Tom Norton, who drank a concoction of magnesium chloride in 2002 to demonstrate how fine it was[2], in November of 2012 Hickenlooper swigged some fracking fluid with Halliburton's CEO Dave Lesar (who himself did not drink it, but handed it off to another executive). In testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, Hickenlooper recounted this story. Previously, he had bragged about this incident on the political website ColoradoPols.[1]
What a guy. Although it turns out our governor's antics were more than a little disingenuous. While technically drinking a little fracking fluid (and thus about all most anyone will remember of this), it turns out to have been a new concoction of Halliburton's called CleanStim.
Composed of such ingredients as vegetable oil, CleanStim is touted as being a safer alternative to the fracking fluids now widely used, in being "sourced from the food industry" and "food grade."[1] While supposedly a safer alternative to traditional fracking fluids, apparently not in widespread use, with seemingly no one other than in the industry sure the degree. Different fracking wells in varying geologies require different approaches and chemicals used. Not to mention, if possibly an improvement, CleanStim is not benign or safe to ingest. Halliburton does not recommend this, and on their fact sheet list a number of its components as being hazardous. [4]
And our governor? Perhaps no surprise that he began his career as a petroleum geologist. His gubernatorial campaign bankrolled by the oil industry. Having also appointed one of his oil industry donors to a key regulatory position. His administration has overseen an increase in oil/gas spills, and a decrease in associated fines. He has offered to help overturn local regulations; threatening the efforts of Longmont, and now apparently Fort Collins.
He has also publicly denied that global climate change is occurring. This from a governor of a state where a large portion of its forests are either already dead or threatened due our rapidly changing climate. But also the kind of guy who repeatedly claims that fracking poses "literally no risk," and is "completely safe." [1]
Well, what can one say? Other than perhaps that all interested parties should certainly not take anything read here as sacrosanct—and most definitely not any official opinion they may run across—BUT rather study the matter closely themselves from a variety of sources.
Therein, you may discover a few reasons for concern, or at least caution.
Full Disclosure: I have worked in the water filtration business. I'm VERY aware of the need to filter toxins from our drinking water. (You do know chorine is a toxin, right? Your municipal water is treated with chlorine to kill viruses, bacteria, etc. Chlorine is not good for you, by the way.)
There are many home filter systems which will remove left-over cooties from your drinking water. Get them. Use them. They are a great way to give you, your family and your pets some insurance.
I used to own a vacation home on a lake in PA which has Natural Gas leases (using fracking) all around. I sold out my share, not because of fracking fears, but because it didn't make sense for me to be paying taxes, upkeep, etc. for a place we didn't use very much. My siblings bought me out at my request.
I own shares of oil & gas wells. (I wish I owned bigger shares!) Some of my income comes from these.
I live in Colorado and love it here. (Except for the Leftward political momentum....)
============
Idunn makes a BUNCH of unsupported claims. I'm challenging some of them here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn
Yes, hydraulic fracturing operations can and have contaminated water resources.
Bzzt! Idunn, you gotta stop relying on such Left Wing sources. Please list ANY instances of *evidence* of water table contamination by fracking. Claims and assertions from newspapers and magazines are not evidence. Scientific studies are evidence. Independent analyses which can be peer reviewed are evidence.
I'll wait....
Quote:
And, yes, fracking fluid is highly toxic. If composed primarily of water and sand, also a significant quantity of all sorts of nasty chemicals. Benzene, as I recall, is one, and I've detailed some of them in a post on this thread some time back.
I looked at your "detailing". All you have consistently done in this thread is assert your claims. Where's your *evidence* of these highly toxic fracking chemicals in use today? (Not from 30 years ago. Today. The industry self-regulated and stopped using the toxins a long time ago.)
Quote:
In July of 2008 a nurse in the ER of Durango's Mercy Regional Center, Cathy Behr, fell ill after treating a patient. Involved in an oil field accident, he arrived with his clothes damp and reeking of some substance. Within minutes Ms. Behr had lost her sense of smell. It soon developed that the ER was locked down and the room ventilated by firefighters. She had not regained her sense of smell by the end her shift. A week later her heart, liver and lungs began to shut down. She spent 30 hours in intensive care. Apparently recovered, she still has problems breathing.
Presumably Ms. Behr is more sensitive to these chemicals than others, although certainly this not the only health related incident involving fracking fluid.
Please give us links to evidence that these were fracking-related problems.
Quote:
One might also understand that a single fracking well can use 5,000,000 gallons of water, sometimes less, or more. If but a small proportion of that, these chemicals used can measure in a single well something like 20,000 gallons.
Source, please.
Quote:
Well, what can one say? Other than perhaps that all interested parties should certainly not take anything read here as sacrosanct—and most definitely not any official opinion they may run across—BUT rather study the matter closely themselves from a variety of sources.
You should take some of your own advice. Since when have Salon and High Country News been respected scientific journals?
Lastly, you offered the Sautner's claims, in Pennsylvania, as some sort of "proof" in your initial post. IMO, the Sautners are clearly lying about a LOT of their claims. (Watch the recently released documentary, FrackNation.) The Sautners flatly refuse to allow any independent testing of their water. They won't allow any reporters or camera people (who are not hand-picked) on their property. They called their local law enforcement and falsely claimed the FrackNation crew had trespassed. Many of the Sautners own neighbors are pleading with them to stop their lunatic claims because the Sautners are hurting tourism, house sales, etc.
You have a lot of evidence to produce to support your assertions, Idunn. I'll wait....
"A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report found traces of methane, ethane and phenol in a monitoring well in rural Pavillion, Wyo., where residents say fracking has contaminated their drinking water." [1]
Filtering one's water, from whatever source (nor excluding those municipal) is a good idea.
As to sources pertaining to fracking, one will find I've often supplied references to substantiate that said, AND as a beginning point towards further research for anyone so interested. Clearly no one source should be considered alone. For that matter disingenuous to dismiss the validity of any particular instance merely because of the credentials of any one particular reference referring to it.
To answer the first question of water table contamination—in part—look to Pavillion, Wyoming. It should be considered an example and indicator. There are other cases elsewhere, although this one of the better known. Which raises a point: often a story pops up, with some merit or not, and a plethora of "journalists" run with it almost verbatim without ever checking the underlying facts. Those researching such things are advised to. Nor am I claiming the reference cited in this instance is the end all of the argument. One might also see, if reading it, that the oil industry continues to contest their culpability for what has transpired in Pavillion.
So naturally always two sides to a question. If raising specious arguments is often the favored provence of scoundrels and their ilk. The serious will look beyond this, to the facts as they can best find and decipher them, and decide for themselves.
As for the remainder, I've already in instances provided some substantiation previously, and a great deal of information exists beyond anything mentioned on this thread—go look it up yourself.
1) 'Pollutants linked to ‘fracking’ found in Wyoming groundwater,' The Hill Pollutants linked to
Ultra Petroleum indicates that the petroleum resources under El Paso County do NOT appear to be commercially viable.
Ultra stated: "Although our core and log data indicate the presence of oil in the rocks, the petroleum system is immature, under-pressured and not commercial. This has been verified by completion of test results from both a vertical and a horizontal well....We'll continue to monitor industry activity in the region but have no immediate plans for additional exploration in the area."
So, it seems there will be no windfall of tax receipts and no customer for all that water to be piped up here via the SDS pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir. It seems the curse of Banning-Lewis Ranch is intact, anyone who buys it ends up NOT making money on it.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
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 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.
Colorado water not as valuable
Thank you.
