Gasland........

[PiLFy 0]

>What are they doing? Using up old weapon's grade material from
>decommissioned warheads?

France?

No, I meant us, not France.

If you've the choice of having dangerous, radioactive but useless waste. Or, recyclable fissile material, plus less dangerous radioactive Plutonium? It seems like a no-brainer to go w/recycling.

Thanks for teaching me a bit about this. I'll buy a book about it @some point.

[billvon 2,475]

>France? No, I meant us, not France.

We do some limited reprocessing at Hanford but I don't think it's enough to make a dent in commercial fuel needs. We recently signed a deal with India to reprocess fuel for us; I don't know what's happened with that recently.

>If you've the choice of having dangerous, radioactive but useless waste.
>Or, recyclable fissile material, plus less dangerous radioactive Plutonium?
>It seems like a no-brainer to go w/recycling.

On the minus side you have a much greater risk of proliferation. If you train hundreds of people, and build several facilities, that have the ability to separate enriched uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, then those processes, skills and equipment will be more available to people who want to make weapons out of that spent fuel.

[PiLFy 0]

We recently signed a deal with India to reprocess fuel for us."

Wait a minute. They afraid of proliferation. But, they don't mind shipping the crap back & forth to freakin Asia?!


"If you train hundreds of people, and build several facilities, that have the ability to separate enriched uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, then those processes, skills and equipment will be more available to people who want to make weapons out of that spent fuel."

Guess they'll have to stop stealing jobs from Americans through H1B visas then, huh? There aren't enough defense sector personnel already trained in this sort of thing? Big cuts are coming in that sector. Rather than retrain our people. They're going to send the stuff over there to another country??? Yeah, that makes F***ing sense.

[Jockeyshifter63 0]

Gasland is so full of misinformation and outright lies. I have lived and worked in the Oilfield my entire life. I am 3rd generation oilfield. I moved my wife and children smack dab in the middle of a gas field I developed. EVERY SINGLE WELL was hydraulically fractured. I had the best water well in the entire county, in fact I had to add hardner to the water so my hot tub chemicals would work properly. The industry has been hydraulically fracturing wells for over 40 years. People have been living in those areas for that length of time and continue to do so. My family has lived in one of the largest gas fields in the US since the 50's. The biggest problem is the industry has done a poor job of trying to educate the public. This is a very complex industry and frankly even if we did try to educate the public we would be called liars, because you know we are just greedy bastards, so we just don't bother. Never mind the fact that if 90+% of the wells drilled today are not stimulated they are not productive. What that means to you is you will either need to import more of your energy or go live in a cave. If fracturing was as bad as Gasland says then Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah would be uninhabitable. (I mention these areas because this is where I work) Did you know there are oil wells in Hollywood California and have been since the turn of last century. Yes there are wells in downtown Hollywood, people don't see them because movie stars don't want to be reminded that they are sitting on top of one of the larger oil reserves in the nation. So they are required to put buildings over them.
Now I am sure I will be villified but I am just so tired of all the bullshit the left puts out about the industry that heats your homes, cooks your food, lights your houses, even powers the very computer you are using, not to mention fuels the airplanes we use to jump. What do you think your parachutes and equipment are made from.......petrochemicals. OK rant over. Damn I feel better.

BTW for the record I think we should develop all our energy sources, Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro etc. We have the ability to be energy independent but we are to busy stabbing ourselves in the eye to see it.
I gotta run. I have to design another frac job...really.

[Bertt 0]

Two questions:
What chemicals are used to fracture a well?
Why can't plain water be used?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Jockeyshifter63 0]

Two questions:
What chemicals are used to fracture a well?
Why can't plain water be used?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Many different chemicals are used and the formulations of most of those are proprietary. They range from harmless to toxic. Isopropyl alchohol is a pretty common ingrediant for example but is usually part of a more complex compound.

Plain water is used in many fracturing treatments and water is the biggest component of most fracs unless they are using an energized fluid such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide. A common frac in my area is termed a "Slick water Frac". Basically the water is treated with friction reducers. The purpose of a fracture treatment is to try and connect as much of the target formation with the wellbore. To do that you push the water at a high rate to create fractures in the zone of interest then you start introducing a proppant such as sand in with the fluid. The proppant does axactly as the name implies, it props the fracture that you created open with a permeable media. After the frac is shut down the hope is that the fracture will remain "open" due to the proppant. Alot of the chemicals are used to create a gel to carry the proppant into the fracture. (Think of gelatine right before it turns into those neat little cubes cubes we eat.) We need this gooey viscosity to carry the proppant as far as possible. The real trick is for the gel to "break" and turn back to water after a certain time period. Usually hours. Then the hope is that you now have an permeable fracture that the oil or gas or both can travel thru to the wellbore and then up and out and on to market. The simple answer to your second question is we could use just plain water but it would not be very effective and the well would most likely not be very commercial. Hope this helps.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Gasland is so full of misinformation and outright lies.

So what motives do you think the narrator had -- was it a publicity stunt?

Quote

The industry has been hydraulically fracturing wells for over 40 years.

Gas drilling has been around for some time. Horizontal shale fracturing, which this documentary is about, has not been around for 40 years.

How would you approach the 32 families of Dimock, PA, who lost their clean water and have to have it shipped in, and whose property values evaporated? Would you listen to them with an open mind or tell them they're full of it?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 2,475]

>Wait a minute. They afraid of proliferation. But, they don't mind shipping the
>crap back & forth to freakin Asia?!

Well, the transportation itself isn't much of a proliferation issue (the spent fuel can't be used in weapons without reprocessing) but the intermediates of the process definitely represent a risk.

And I worded it badly before - we are shipping our waste to India, they are reprocessing it, and then they are using the fuel in _their_ reactors. They're not shipping it back here. It's part of an agreement signed in 2007 and got pretty wide support; nuclear waste is a big issue for a lot of people, and having it "go away" to a country that wants it was a pretty popular solution.

(And technically the agreement only _allows_ this to happen; it doesn't mean it definitely will. We have similar agreements with Japan, although I don't think we ever shipped them any spent fuel.)

However I do hope we start reprocessing fuel here, because we can use the energy it would provide. If we do the Indian program won't be much of an issue; the amounts involved in the program won't make a dent in the amount of spent nuclear fuel we have here in the US.

>Guess they'll have to stop stealing jobs from Americans through H1B visas then, huh?

Completely separate topic.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>France? No, I meant us, not France.

We do some limited reprocessing at Hanford but I don't think it's enough to make a dent in commercial fuel needs. We recently signed a deal with India to reprocess fuel for us; I don't know what's happened with that recently.

>If you've the choice of having dangerous, radioactive but useless waste.
>Or, recyclable fissile material, plus less dangerous radioactive Plutonium?
>It seems like a no-brainer to go w/recycling.

On the minus side you have a much greater risk of proliferation. If you train hundreds of people, and build several facilities, that have the ability to separate enriched uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, then those processes, skills and equipment will be more available to people who want to make weapons out of that spent fuel.

The high burn up in commercial power reactors generally produces an unfavorable (for weapons) mix of Pu239 and Pu240 isotopes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,475]

>The high burn up in commercial power reactors generally produces an
>unfavorable (for weapons) mix of Pu239 and Pu240 isotopes.

Agreed. But since processes like PUREX separate plutonium and uranium (and uranium's more useful to terrorists anyway) the process still entails some risk.

[PiLFy 0]

"(the spent fuel can't be used in weapons without reprocessing)"

A really big Dirty Bomb? Plutonium reservoir poisoning? If it's not going to make a dent. The risk doesn't make sense.

>Guess they'll have to stop stealing jobs from Americans through H1B visas then, huh?

Oops. I usually don't post in SC. A little slipped out of me.

[Bertt 0]

So what keeps the isopropyl alchohol out of my drinking water?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[dks13827 3]

There is more than a little info that this film is total, or 99 percent, BS !!! Just like 'Who Killed the Electric Car', which I studied in detail. The lies were horrific and deliberate. But, the sheep always believe it so it is a good way to make money.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

There is more than a little info that this film is total, or 99 percent, BS !!! Just like 'Who Killed the Electric Car', which I studied in detail. The lies were horrific and deliberate. But, the sheep always believe it so it is a good way to make money.

Here is the de-debunking, to which the energy industry has not responded in over a year.

Believe what you want -- the fact is, peoples' very ability to drink clean water is being taken away from them.

As for the "horrific and deliberate" lies, please share.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 2,475]

>Just like 'Who Killed the Electric Car', which I studied in detail. The lies
>were horrific and deliberate.

Like what?

[billvon 2,475]

>A really big Dirty Bomb?

Right. But you can make a dirty bomb with any radioactive waste. We generate about 12,000 tons a year of high level radioactive waste and transport about 1/3 of that hither and yon already; reprocessing (or not reprocessing) won't change that.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Gasland is so full of misinformation and outright lies.

So what motives do you think the narrator had -- was it a publicity stunt?

Quote

The industry has been hydraulically fracturing wells for over 40 years.

Gas drilling has been around for some time. Horizontal shale fracturing, which this documentary is about, has not been around for 40 years.

How would you approach the 32 families of Dimock, PA, who lost their clean water and have to have it shipped in, and whose property values evaporated? Would you listen to them with an open mind or tell them they're full of it?

Ok... if he says so...BUT....http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-finds-fracking-compound-in-wyoming-aquifer


Last year -- after warning residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered -- the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.

The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling -- and hydraulic fracturing in particular -- has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.

The gas industry -- led by the Canadian company EnCana, which owns the wells in Pavillion -- has denied that its activities are responsible for the contamination. EnCana has, however, supplied drinking water to residents.




I know I cant light my water out of the tap on fire... although it might be cool... tap that stuff...and burn it in the furnace.. but I SURE as hell would not want to drink that shit... I guess other peoples milage definitely varies

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Gasland is so full of misinformation and outright lies.

So what motives do you think the narrator had -- was it a publicity stunt?

*ding ding ding*

Quote

Quote

The industry has been hydraulically fracturing wells for over 40 years.

Gas drilling has been around for some time. Horizontal shale fracturing, which this documentary is about, has not been around for 40 years.

You're right..it's been around for 60 years.

"Hydraulic fracturing for stimulation of oil and natural gas wells was first used in the United States in 1947."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Believe what you want -- the fact is, peoples' very ability to drink clean water is being taken away from them.

Really? So where's the EPA studies showing that?

Oh, wait.. the EPA said there hadn't been any incidents.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Believe what you want -- the fact is, peoples' very ability to drink clean water is being taken away from them.

Really? So where's the EPA studies showing that?

Oh, wait.. the EPA said there hadn't been any incidents.

www.ewg.org/release/epa-report-fracking-contaminated-drinking-water

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Believe what you want -- the fact is, peoples' very ability to drink clean water is being taken away from them.

Really? So where's the EPA studies showing that?

Oh, wait.. the EPA said there hadn't been any incidents.

www.ewg.org/release/epa-report-fracking-contaminated-drinking-water

Got a link to the actual EPA vs the story from the advocacy site?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 191]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Believe what you want -- the fact is, peoples' very ability to drink clean water is being taken away from them.

Really? So where's the EPA studies showing that?

Oh, wait.. the EPA said there hadn't been any incidents.

www.ewg.org/release/epa-report-fracking-contaminated-drinking-water

Got a link to the actual EPA vs the story from the advocacy site?

It exists in hardcopy only. In 1987 the EPA had not yet discovered the electron.

As it is, the EPA is a solid 30 years behind the curve in software development. On-the-fly coding with a time and materials contract? It's a contractor's wet dream.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Jockeyshifter63 0]

So what motives do you think the narrator had -- was it a publicity stunt?

Gas drilling has been around for some time. Horizontal shale fracturing, which this documentary is about, has not been around for 40 years.

How would you approach the 32 families of Dimock, PA, who lost their clean water and have to have it shipped in, and whose property values evaporated? Would you listen to them with an open mind or tell them they're full of it?

-----------------------------------------------------------

The motives are the same as any evironut group. Completely shut us down so they can force you to use wind and solar. Never mind the fact that wind and solar can only make up less than 10% of our energy needs as a nation. Never mind that massive wind and solar projects are more hideous to look at than any gas well, not to mention they are permanent where a gas well is temporary. Here we have to deal with the San Juan Citizens Alliance disinformation and BS for years. Personally I like informed conservationists to environuts. Locally we had problems a few years ago with claims of methane contamination in water wells due to Coalbed Methane development. What it boiled down to were problems with 40 and 50 year old orphan wells. It was very complicated and would take more time than I want to take here to explain it. Suffice it to say the problems were not even close to what the environuts were claiming. There were a couple of instances of direct methane contamination and those were rectified by the State of CO, and the Industry but most of the claims were unfounded. I know this personally because I had to get water samples of every water well in a 1 mile radius of any new well we drilled before we ever drilled and completed it. After the well was on we took water samples and monitored the surrounding wells. After that program was implemented the BS flat stopped. Never did see any relation to bad water and drilling/completion.

The Antrim Shale in Michigan and many other shales around the country have been produced and stimulated for decades. Shales have been produced all over the world for decades. Most have just not been very economic until technology caught up. The Bakken in N Dakota has been producing for decades but recently the technology became available to pinpoint and lengthen the targets and laterals with the horizontal drilling. Horizontal completions in these shales are just larger cousins of their vertical counterparts due to the amount of the target formation that is contacted by the wellbore. The mechanics of the well are the same just more technologically involved. This new technology has made all these previously marginally economic shales very productive. This is good news for our country people. We really have the ability to be energy independent again!

There are currently several horizontal shale developments in the USA. The Bakken in N Dakota, the Niobrara in N Colorado & Wyoming, the Utica-Collingwood in Michigan, the Eagle Ford in S Texas, the Haynesville-Bossier in TX, the Fayetteville in Arkansas, the Barnett in TX, the Woodford in OK, the Avalon-Bone Springs in TX, the Chattanooga in KY & TN, the Lower Huron in KY & WV, the Monterey in CA, the Pearsall in TX, and the Mancos in New Mexico, etc. etc.

The only place that seems to have had these issues is the Marcellus. I am not familiar with that play and the problems there, but my guess is that if there is a problem it would have more to do with poor cement jobs on the casing than Hydraulic Fracturing. That's why I say it is pretty complicated for the layman to understand and therefore easy to exploit the fears of what people don't know or understand. For example; pick a topic that you have intimate personal knowledge of and try to remember how right the "media" got it last time a news story came out on that topic. I promise the screw ups and pure disinformation are ten times worse when it comes to the oil & gas industry. Hey everyone loves to hate us; it's in vogue to detest the oil & gas industry, we make pretty easy targets - similar to the nuclear industry.

If it is proven that peoples water is impacted by drilling or completion of gas or oil wells then they should be compensated fairly. My experience is that very few problems that are blamed on the oil and gas business end up being proven to be so. But, you never will see the retraction by the media, just the initial sensational headline, and unfortunately that is all anyone ever remembers. Even the EPA (who is definitely not the friend of my industry) couldn't find any correlation between hydraulic fracturing and water quality.

My guess is that I will never convince you but maybe I can help some others understand a little bit more. Now I better get back to work..... I am so far behind I think I am first.

[masterblaster72 0]

Thank you for the civil discourse, which is rare here. I also appreciate your expertise on the subject.

My understanding is that the energy companies are in such a rush to get the gas out of the Marcellus shale that they are building these wells in haste. That's where the mistakes happen -- like the bad cement jobs you mentioned. What adds to the problem is the lack of regulation, from my understanding. There are far less inspectors available than there are wells popping up. So, the way I see things -- why not regulate the industry more, in the name of safety? Even if it means holding off on the fracking for a few years -- let regulatory agencies catch up to industry so as to prevent further contaminations from occurring.

I've been learning from some experts on the subject as well -- this is an interview with a professor who led the only peer-reviewed study on water contamination and its links with fracking. He said that while there is no evidence of fracking fluid in well water, there is a connection between methane from shale contaminating well water. Both environmentalists and those from the energy industry had mixed reactions to the study. Well-worth a watch.

Finally, to give you an example of why some in the energy industry are hated: in a town in rural Italy, an American oil company is looking to drill five wells and build a refinery and de-sulfurization plant. The region is a natural, scenic gem, heavily agricultural, and the locals have invested heavily in a growing agri-tourism industry in the last 20 years. The locals have repeatedly told the oil company that their refinery is not wanted, even after the company offered an annual pittance in Euro to the local community. Numerous meetings with locals, numerous protests, petitions, and official statements by more than 20 towns to the region's government continually said no, because they know that this refinery will bring economic and cultural ruin to the region (no one will want to buy food/wine grown near an oil refinery, and no one will want to take a vacation there). Not to mention the health problems that hydrogen sulfide spewing into otherwise clean air will bring...not to mention that they want to drill on a seismically fragile area in the region, which the company has even acknowledged is a serious risk...not to mention that the oil underneath the ground there ranks only a 12 for its quality, because it's full of sulfuric impurities...And STILL, they're pushing to get in there, when they know that they are not wanted. I hope you can understand in that context that those in the energy industry often do things that do not help their image; for that, they don't need help from "environuts."

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Bertt 0]

You mention bad casings, but what I don't get is that the fluid has to get out into the rock formation. If it remained in the casing, it wouldn't do any good. So what keeps the fracking fluid from seeping into any nearby aquifer?

You don't have to outrun the bear.