|
Post by justsomeguy on Dec 9, 2011 14:01:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 9, 2011 14:09:19 GMT
Coming from the NYT and EPA, nothing is to be taken seriously as "conclusive", but some people will latch on to anything that fits their own politics.
The EPA is a corrupt government bureaucracy out of control.
Still waiting for pictures of your "cheap" solar array.
|
|
|
Post by lyrch75 on Dec 9, 2011 18:52:23 GMT
Mighty interesting that this comes out a few months after EPA director Lee was made to look like a fool in front of Congress when she could come up with no examples of fracking ever contaminating ground water.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 9, 2011 22:08:02 GMT
This was one study in a very small area in Wyoming, that has been known to have water quality problems since the mid-'90's. People should not go ballistic over this, and condemn the general process. The technology has changed in the last 20 years. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-contamination-federal-agency . The EPA's findings in Wyoming are specific to the region's geology; the Pavillion-area gas wells were fracked at shallower depths than many of the wells in the Marcellus shale and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 10, 2011 3:39:37 GMT
This EPA study is in an area that has had water problems well before fracking started. It is in an area of very shallow hydrocarbons. The findings of this study are to be expected. IF it hadn't found contamination, that would mean that something was reallllllly goofy with this study. If they had done this study in North Dakota, they would have found no comtamination as the hydro carbons are much deeper as a rule. In the areas where the coal is shallow, it is well known that benzene, arsenic, etc are present in the water and have been since settlers came here.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 10, 2011 16:40:35 GMT
I work in the industry and as a third party contractor I can attest to the fact that it is only a matter of time before one company or another trying to save money ends up contaminating an aquifer somewhere. Traditionally the industry has been opposed to any regulations, but in this case I think some common sense precautions which are pretty much the industry standard need to be adopted across the board to prevent groundwater contamination.
Most companies are required to use water based drilling mud until they are well below the aquifer and then they run steel casing and cement to seal off and protect groundwater. In many states they are not required to do so but there should be a minimum of 12 hours drying time for the cement to cure. In the Gulf disaster they were in such a hurry to "save" money the cementing process was severely compromised. If these guidelines are followed the chance of groundwater contamination is very, very small.
On another note, the chemicals used in the "fracking" process should be public information. The Industry has long fought against releasing just exactly what they are using claiming the cocktail is proprietary. There are some very toxic ingredients that they use and probably some safer alternatives. It's past time for the industry to lay their cards on the table.
If these precautions are followed with a little tweaking we can greatly reduce the chance of any groundwater contamination.
Next step needs to be the Keystone pipeline. The Alaskan pipeline was greatly opposed by many environmentalists but has a stellar environmental record.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Dec 10, 2011 16:45:58 GMT
I work in the industry and as a third party contractor I can attest to the fact that it is only a matter of time before one company or another trying to save money ends up contaminating an aquifer somewhere. Traditionally the industry has been opposed to any regulations, but in this case I think some common sense precautions which are pretty much the industry standard need to be adopted across the board to prevent groundwater contamination. Most companies are required to use water based drilling mud until they are well below the aquifer and then they run steel casing and cement to seal off and protect groundwater. In many states they are not required to do so but there should be a minimum of 12 hours drying time for the cement to cure. In the Gulf disaster they were in such a hurry to "save" money the cementing process was severely compromised. If these guidelines are followed the chance of groundwater contamination is very, very small. On another note, the chemicals used in the "fracking" process should be public information. The Industry has long fought against releasing just exactly what they are using claiming the cocktail is proprietary. There are some very toxic ingredients that they use and probably some safer alternatives. It's past time for the industry to lay their cards on the table. If these precautions are followed with a little tweaking we can greatly reduce the chance of any groundwater contamination. Next step needs to be the Keystone pipeline. The Alaskan pipeline was greatly opposed by many environmentalists but has a stellar environmental record. Thanks for the common sense!
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 10, 2011 18:36:48 GMT
Glenkoks, When you say "I work in the industry and as a third party contractor" what do you mean? Typical fracing fluids are spelled out here: www.energyindepth.org/frac-fluid.pdfIs there something wrong with that? What would the average life expectancy be without cheap energy?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 11, 2011 16:31:41 GMT
hairball, I run a tool called an MWD. It stands for Measurement While Drilling. Long story short it uses magnetometers, accelerometers, and inclinometers to help determine just exactly where the bit is when drilling horizontal wells.
I can also assure you that they use hundreds of chemicals not listed by your link. Stuff with names so long it will scare you. Simply google fracking chemicals. Some companies claim they use up to 750 different proprietary chemicals for their fracking cocktails.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Dec 15, 2011 1:59:53 GMT
Well, the EPA drilled a hole 900 feet deep in an area where the bottom of the water table is at 300 feet. And where the top of the gas bearing structure is at 860 feet or so.
If I drilled a well into a gas bearing formation I would expect to find hydrocarbons. EPA did that, found what they should have expected, and seems surprised. It is probably the most successful endeavor the EPA has ever undertaken.
But Pravda West will try to make it into something ominous.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 15, 2011 2:42:41 GMT
Yep stranger. IF they hadn't found hydrocarbons, well....it would have been a dry hole I guess. Wonder if they got this one cased in so that at least it will pay for the drilling costs.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 15, 2011 3:17:50 GMT
The article claims claims that it found chemicals used in the actual fracking process. Thats a big difference than leaching for hydrocarbons which can be done naturally.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 15, 2011 3:26:26 GMT
Glennkoks: True enough. But if this study was done as the study was in Pennsylvania, it is a worthless study looking for a desired outcome.
And after seeing how the legal proceedings were done in South America....and the cooking of the data......I dn't believe much of anything EPA issues anymore.
I don't say this with glee either. I really do like clean air/water etc. The enforcers, the EPA, has to have a stellar reputation. Its' roughshod tactics anymore are not providing that stellar reputation.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 15, 2011 17:22:15 GMT
sigurdur, it should not require a degree in rocket science to see if there is any groundwater contamination. Just take groundwater samples from a mixed sample of sites and test it for chemicals used in the fracking process. I suspect contamination will be hard to find.
However, my industry has not always been the most responsible. I fear that we are one careless mistake away from giving the EPA all they need to shut us down. There is not much of an emphasis put on education and many of the people responsible in the field do not look at the bigger picture and in the oilfield we are taught that "days are dollars" at all costs. This was clearly evident in the BP Gulf disaster.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Dec 15, 2011 23:42:29 GMT
Hmmm how to parse this...
We have a story in the New York Times. The New York Times has an agenda, and is willing to fudge facts to support it... We have the EPA. A government Agency with an agenda, that is willing to fudge facts to support it... We have the petroleum industry. With an agenda and willing to fudge facts to support it...
Winner? Encana Oil an Gas wins -1 to -2.
Furthermore, I would like to throw a flag, and my hat. As there are two penalties on the play...
The NYT will be penalized by loss of revenue and eventually a slow and painfull death for willfully ignoring the definition of journalism and engaging in activism and propaganda. All of it's employee's will eventually be joining Baghdad Bob on the unemployment line. Those responsible will move on to greener pastures to... make less green... again...
The EPA, after wasting my tax dollars by engaging in fraud, helping destroy the economy, engaging in tactics that are reprehensible, and ignoring it's own rules and those of congress, will be rewarded by the Obama Administration and granted new powers, paid for by yours truly and all the the other long suffering taxpayers in this great nation. I sincerely hope that he and his do not get four more years of trashing my country. His "leadership" is really starting to sting...
|
|