Federal Study - Fracking

[quade 3]

Link? Or is that the same as in the OP of this thread?

Besides which, we're NOT just talking about the fluid.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

Link? Or is that the same as in the OP of this thread?

Besides which, we're NOT just talking about the fluid.

I know
We are talking about the methane as well

Those quotes are from the op but the names are there and who there work for is as well

but
I thought you might find this interesting

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdf#page=209

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Hmmm, that's not opening on the computer at this facility. I'll have to check it out later.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

It is a big pdf file from the epa website
Took a while for it to open here too

Quote

Study of the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on
Drinking Water Resources

Progress Report

Here is the cover page so you know what you are getting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ibx 2]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/11/fracking-water-injection-major-earthquakes

The potential for major earth quakes is ok for your freedom I guess...

[rushmc 18]

ibx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/11/fracking-water-injection-major-earthquakes

The potential for major earth quakes is ok for your freedom I guess...

The polution angle is not working so, different alarmism
Sad really

But of course the two are not the same really

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

From a more reliable source.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

Interesting... the article, and source.

Being no longer in a zombie like state, I re-read this article, and will re-read the rest of your comments after it as well. But...

Can you do something for me?

Can you list out, itemize them in order of most critical to least, each of the problems (simply stated) that exist and why we should not be doing Hydraulic Fracturing because of them?

Quote

If you're saying that there are not water supplies so polluted by fracking they can be lit of fire, then I would like you to prove that to me.

This statement is manipulative.

Additionally, from your own source:

"The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents."

"Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion."

"The report noted that as much as a mile of rock separated the bottom of the shallow drinking water wells from the deep zones fractured for gas and identified several ways in which fluids or the gas contaminants could move underground: The substances could be displaced by the pressures underground; could travel through new fractures or connections to faults created by the hydraulic fracturing process; or could leak from the well casing itself somewhere closer to the surface."

"The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned.”

"In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”

"For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job," he said. "They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don't believe that it is common and we certainly don't believe that it is universal."


I do not see how this article helps any case you are making; hurts it quite frankly.

However, I am completely fine with more research and testing on all fronts.

Not ok with the following:

Quote

Hinchey is one of several Democratic members of Congress who recently re-introduced the FRAC Act, which calls for public disclosure of the chemicals used underground.

Which has nothing to do with this article, nothing to do with methane, and both this article and the OP, state that fracking fluid is not contaminating ground water.

[dmcoco84 4]

masterblaster72

***From a more reliable source.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

He won't believe it because he simply does not want to. Give it up.

See my last post.

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

******From a more reliable source.
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

He won't believe it because he simply does not want to. Give it up.

Oh and I completely understand. Sometimes it's difficult to admit that the industry a person belongs to profits on the ill heath of others and the destruction of the planet. The lie he tells himself daily is better than him facing the truth.

Still . . . hard to deny the actual science. He does his best though.

Methane... not harmful to drink.

How does he or I "belong to that industry"?

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

Yes, I'm an "anti fosil fuel liberal radical" because I don't want to destroy the planet and cause other people to suffer who-knows-what sort of illnesses due to pollution.

Such a "radical" idea.

See previous post... methane.

[dmcoco84 4]

DanG

Quote

...drives your need to belive that fracking causes tap water to burn.

What drives your inability to believe that there may be any downsides whatsoever to fossil fuels?

I think this is also a manipulative statement.

A reasonable fact finder would not frame a statement like that. In this thread, the issue is getting the hydrocarbon out of the ground and the issues around it, not the burning aspect.

And once again... those non-fossil fuel sources of energy that are constant touted, are not ready in a capacity to replace what have; unless we are talking nuclear.

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

***With the burning water story debunked...

Please show the peer reviewed scientific paper that "debunks" this paper I referenced earlier.

In particular, I'm curious to see the "debunking" of the carbon isotope data.

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

Peer-review... Whoopty Doo.

This article doesn't need to be debunked... see my first post this morning.

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

***The one Quade posted was a joke...

You have yet to post a single thing that can scientifically refute it.

The article refutes itself.

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

The science stands by itself. The methods have been peer reviewed as sound. What this means is anyone on either side can rerun the study to confirm or deny, but the original data speaks for itself. The methane from the area in question was due to fracking as shown by the various isotope levels. In other words, it wasn't simply the "natural" methane which would be normally present at those well levels, but methane that had migrated from the area being fracked.

If you believe in the concept of carbon dating, then the paper I pointed to is pretty undeniable.

Again... see my first post this morning.

That article refutes itself... more research is needed on all fronts.

Fracking fluid is not contaminating ground water, methane is not harmful to drink, and until further research is done... easy fix; buy a methane detector.

[rushmc 18]

dmcoco84

******The one Quade posted was a joke...

You have yet to post a single thing that can scientifically refute it.

The article refutes itself.

Duke researchers have refuted themselves since that was posted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

Besides which, we're NOT just talking about the fluid.

lol

[dmcoco84 4]

ibx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/11/fracking-water-injection-major-earthquakes

The potential for major earth quakes is ok for your freedom I guess...

And yet another subject change.

[dmcoco84 4]

quade

Just answer one question. If you can, then maybe we can settle this once and for all.

What are all the chemicals are in fracking fluid?

Given the large PDF that was posted...

Which chemicals do YOU have a problem with?

Even though they are not contaminating the ground water.

[dmcoco84 4]

dmcoco84

Quote

Two words; Glen Beck.

Two more words; Bull Shit.

Make some threads, I call... Bull Shit.

Still waiting for those blaze articles that you call conspiracy theory's.

[dmcoco84 4]

sfzombie13

and why do you think we're not there today? maybe because they are expensive? tough shit. the reason it's expensive is the subsidies are in the wrong places. too much money getting thrown at oil companies. if they would tax them properly and use the resulting money to go into a r&d fund, we would be oil free soon. they're talking about new 2d materials making solar panels cheaper, all kinds of new stuff going on. just needs some more development. hell, if i ever get the time and money at the same time i'll build a prototype of my new vehicle and patent it. it will totally release the world from oil dependency.

You sound like Hillary Clinton.

Not a compliment.

[dmcoco84 4]

livendive

I like how the same group of people who promote the exclusive use of carbon-based fuels also scoff at suggestions for conservation and oppose the development of alternative energy technologies, yet claim some sort of moral superiority. If we're burning through a finite resource at a rate dozens of orders of magnitude higher than we can replenish it and we're opposing the development of replacement technology, how exactly do we suggest that our great grandkids get along? Intentionally acting in a manner that prioritizes our convenience over the basic needs of future generations is an option available to all of us, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

Blues,
Dave

After re-reading your statements, multiple times, I think the problem here is... like with stem cell research when Bush was in office:

Its not whether things should be done or not... its whether or not the Federal government, not only should, but has the Constitutional ability without amendment, to be STEALING money from individuals to "invest" into whatever they deem is good/smart/needed.

It's Not Your Job! Its not in your enumerated powers. Fuck FDR and Teddy.

States can do whatever they want. California can waste all the taxpayer money they want... but I prefer to live in a state that hasn't been smoking crack.

Maybe, if they were smoking some of that cannabis instead, their brains would be working much better.

[dmcoco84 4]

masterblaster72

***I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

"Moral or ethical" are not considerations in the fossil fuels buisiness; they're obstacles to the status quo and profits.

Profit is a good thing...

Not sending money to Saudi Arabia is even better.

Profit margin is something people like you need to look at.

The status quo, is the Federal government violating its enumerate powers.

[dmcoco84 4]

sfzombie13

wow. just because you think it can't be done, you think we shouldn't even try? fucking pathetic approach to any sort of change.

Where have you ever seen me say that R&D in solar, wind, and biofuels should not be done?

Where have you seen me say that I would not want them used, even if they were viable and affordable?

I have however, repeatedly said, that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to be "investing" in whatever they deem they should. States however can do anything they want; many are doing so.

And if the Federal government were not stealing and wasting so much of OUR money, there would be even more money in the hands of those venture capitalists that have and would continue to fund those needs; when the government isn't screwing with it.

Quote

and do you really believe anyone in the us has any more concern for the environment than anyone else?

Absolutely.

Quote

i could show you lots of coal mines around here that prove otherwise.

Not sure what that means...

Coal fire plants are capturing incredible amounts of byproduct currently. And the associated technology is not only increasing exponentially, it is doing so faster than any of the alternative technologies.

If we were able to capture 100%, would you still be against coal?

1/4th of the worlds coal, if i recall...?

Quote

if they can get away with ignoring the rules, they can. it's too expensive. and every once in a while you hear about the results.

Yeah, its called Human Nature.

And its too expensive, because of the EPA, not because it just is.

If coal mines are polluting the surrounding areas in various ways, there are laws in place. Just like with the Koch brothers... present the evidence, and prosecute them.

Quote

and if yu have been keeping up with any of the latest advances in 2d materials, you wouldn't be nearly so quick to say there is no alternative to fossil fuels. the technology is not here yet for some things,

Its not ready now... tough shit.

When its ready ...viable and cost effective... Let Me Know!

Quote

but to quit trying is just wrong.

Never said it.

[dmcoco84 4]

billeisele

and if yu have been keeping up with any of the latest advances in 2d materials, you wouldn't be nearly so quick to say there is no alternative to fossil fuels. the technology is not here yet for some things, but to quit trying is just wrong.

Quote

and in the meantime how about energy from a non greenhouse gas emitting source, non-carbon based fuel source, price stable fuel, that has a > 95% capacity factor, has proven to be safe, and in many parts of the country can be economically built, owned and operated

go nuclear

Exactly

[dmcoco84 4]

And now to a, as my 6th grade English teacher would say, "Reading is Fundamental", post:

Dean358

Quote

Such Arrogance... while you clearly didn't read what the study was even about.

Seems to me that posting such a simplistic, "this is right and everything else is wrong" rant about a very complicated subject is the very height of arrogance, don't you think?

Maybe... if that were what I posted; which I didn't.

Not even sure how this is a rant:

Looking forward to the USA becoming the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas... while laughing at all the climate change idiocy of wanting everything changed over to NG; when its still a hydrocarbon, and is in no way clean, nor "cleaner" to the point that it would make any difference if man made climate change were not utter bull shit; instead of what it is, a tool of power and control.

Quote

And by quoting The Blaze? Seriously? I went to the link you posted and didn't see a single actual quote from the study, much less a link to it, contained in the article. Glenn Beck and his ilk make a fortune stoking a vein of anger in America by writing nonsense like that article under the guise of "journalism." Propagating such an arrogant, destructive form of "discourse" actually gets in the way of intelligently discussing this issue.

Now, here's were reading is fundamental, and you make yourself look ridiculous.

Though I do love the blaze, I posted their story instead, purposefully, to see if anyone would make idiotic comments like the ones you have, above; given the previous comment about the blaze in this thread.

If you pop over to NPR, they have the same story; Posted at 550pm... with the blaze posting at 845pm.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=203504050

The Blaze - "PITTSBURGH (TheBlaze/AP)"

NPR - "PITTSBURGH (AP)"

So, this is not a Glenn Beck story, it's the AP, with only slight variation between the two.

You've shown your bias, as well as that you didn't actually read the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qileP4bAzek

Quote

To wit: all of our current energy sources have big downsides: Fracking requires pumping millions of gallons of very bad chemicals into the ground;

Quote

OP, and Quade's article show they are not contaminating ground water

nuclear has the possibility of a unrepairable global accident

Quote

Rolling Eyes

and generates tons of dangerous spent fuel we have no place to store;

Quote

Not True, and same as with coal capture, the technology for recycling fuel rods will be in place long before wind, solar, and bio

oil, as you point out, comes from countries that we might be better off not supporting;

Quote

because we have people like John McCain in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood from Saudi Arabia, and are stopping us from using our own sources; NG and Offshore

coal dumps massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere

Quote

Not Anymore, and nearly 100% in the very near future

, wind and solar are not yet efficient enough to really contribute and their output requires some type of storage;

Quote

Agreed

and this isn't the crowd to talk to about energy conservation as we -- myself included -- like using lots of Jet A and megawatts of electricity (in wind tunnels) for our own amusement.

Quote

Yup, and I mostly BASE, so my "carbon footprint" is better than all of ya...lol. And I've never been to a tunnel.

Quote

I suggest we'll need to use all of the above energy sources in a balanced, safe manner until we can develop new technologies to replace them.

Agree.

Quote

A less arrogant and more meaningful discussion

Quote

Yeeeeeah, Ok

would be about the specifics of how to best use all of the resources we have available to get the best cost (meaning all types of costs, not just $) / benefit results.

Pretty simple... return to the Constitution, get the Federal government out of the things they have no authority to be doing.

Quote

P.S. -- For context, here's what the Associated Press said about this study: ...."But DOE researchers view the study as just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks...." This is one of many studies being conducted on this topic, with the final report bringing all the research together due to be released for public comment in 2014. Here's a link to the site about the ongoing research into Fracking: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

Yeah ...NPR... 3rd paragraph:

Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are the first independent look at whether the potentially toxic chemicals pose a threat to people during normal drilling operations. But DOE researchers view the study as just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks.