Hydraulic Fracturing aka Fracking

GostHacked · April 20, 2011

Ok - two studies come out. One funded by enviros and trial lawyers. The other by BP.

Based on the Deepwater Horizon spill last year, I don't think I could trust whatever BP says.

But in the documentary, people who leased the land to the gas companies has clean water wells. After the drilling, the wells became contaminated and unuseable.

TimG · April 20, 2011

Based on the Deepwater Horizon spill last year, I don't think I could trust whatever BP says.

Yet you trust enviros and trial lawyers? You are extremely naive if you believe they are any more trustworthy than BP.

But in the documentary, people who leased the land to the gas companies has clean water wells. After the drilling, the wells became contaminated and unuseable.

So you forget about science entirely and go with anecdotal evidence? That makes no sense. Edited April 20, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · April 20, 2011

Yet you trust enviros and trial lawyers? You are extremely naive if you believe they are any more trustworthy than BP.

No where did I say that, I simply said that I would not trust whatever BP says.

So you forget about science entirely and go with anecdotal evidence? That makes no sense.

My well water is fine.

Drilling happens

My well water is no longer fine (has gas)

So it's pure coincidence then?

You trust the gas company? You trust BP? You trust TEPCO? Seems to be a trend with you.

TimG · April 20, 2011

No where did I say that, I simply said that I would not trust whatever BP says.

Ok - then you should see the dilemma. There are no trustworthy sources of information available on the effects of the gulf spill.

So it's pure coincidence then?

Surface gas was a problem before fracking and will be a problem even if fracking was halted. You need more than a simplistic assertion to establish a causal link.

I will repeat that: surface gas is a problem even without fracking. That means claims of a causal link require evidence. Why is that so hard to understand?

dre · April 20, 2011

Ok - two studies come out. One funded by enviros and trial lawyers. The other by BP. Which do you believe? Do you plan on reading each one of them, checking their methodology and making your own determination? Or do you plan on picking the source that suits your prejudices?

Why? If there is no debate on a particular point between people with diametrically opposed objectives then we can assume that point is as close to the truth as we are likely to get.

Ok - two studies come out. One funded by enviros and trial lawyers. The other by BP. Which do you believe? Do you plan on reading each one of them, checking their methodology and making your own determination? Or do you plan on picking the source that suits your prejudices?

Neither. If either party refuses to submit their work for review Ill dismiss it. If the studies are submitted for review then Ill normally wait and see what their peers think, and see what happens when others attempt to replicate the experiments and methodologies in the studies.

Why? If there is no debate on a particular point between people with diametrically opposed objectives then we can assume that point is as close to the truth as we are likely to get.

No the ammount of debate is really irrelevant. Theres all kinds of debate around creation and evolution, but I still find evolution to be a compelling explanation. All the fake scientific debate generated by Tobacco companies didnt stop us from finding out the truth either... it just delayed things by a decade or so.

This idea that there has to be no debate in order for certain scientific questions to be answered is just bogus. There will almost ALWAYS be debate.

TimG · April 20, 2011

This idea that there has to be no debate in order for certain scientific questions to be answered is just bogus. There will almost ALWAYS be debate.

Logic fail. I said that IF there was no debate then we could consider the question settled. If there is a debate we still might know an answer if there are credible people looking at the problem with no vested interest in the outcome.

However, in situations like this where all players - including the government - have a large financial stake in the outcome then there are no parties that can be trusted.

Lastly, do you actually plan to pay attention to this issue in order to determine who studies have been replicated by whom and make a determination? That is rather time consuming. I suspect you will simply pick someone who shares your biases and accept their claims as gospel. Why is that any better that my position with is to say I can't trust anyone so I can't know?

Edited April 20, 2011 by TimG

dre · April 20, 2011

Logic fail. I said that IF there was no debate then we could consider the question settled. If there is a debate we still might know an answer if there are credible people looking at the problem with no vested interest in the outcome.

However, in situations like this where all players - including the government - have a large financial stake in the outcome then there are no parties that can be trusted.

Lastly, do you actually plan to pay attention to this issue in order to determine who studies have been replicated by whom and make a determination? That is rather time consuming. I suspect you will simply pick someone who shares your biases and accept their claims as gospel. Why is that any better that my position with is to say I can't trust anyone so I can't know?

However, in situations like this where all players - including the government - have a large financial stake in the outcome then there are no parties that can be trusted.

Even in that situation I still trust process in the long run it just takes time. And even if it IS imperfect you arent offering any viable alternative at all. Let people do their studies and make sure they get reviewed. The bias studies, and the faulty data will eventually be filtered out, and eventually we'll get a conlusion thats fairly reliable. This is how we found out tobacco and asbestos caused cancer, and leaded gasoline damaged the environment and made people sick. In both of those cases the exact same kind of debate happened with various interests funding their own conflicted studies but eventually we got actionable data.

I suspect you will simply pick someone who shares your biases and accept their claims as gospel

Then why havent I?

Lastly, do you actually plan to pay attention to this issue in order to determine who studies have been replicated by whom and make a determination

Only if I have a high level of interest in an issue will I actually pay close attention, in most cases Im fine with just waiting for the thing to play out, and not having a strong opinion one way or the other until it does.

Edited April 20, 2011 by dre

Hydraboss · April 20, 2011

Horse shit. Its makes it harder but not at all impossible.

True.

You would have said the same thing about the argument over the health risks inherent in using Tobacco when that debate was still raging.

Except unlike the tobacco debate, there exists technology to prove what is being said. It's called ground penetrating radar and seismic. They do it before they drill a well and after. It's actually pretty cool to see the results...because it SHOWS the formations before and after. Fractures that cause changes to formations are very, very visible. Not to mention they're just a little beneath the ground water table. Example: If the water table is located at around 25m (82feet) and the oil/gas well surface casing is set at 250m (820feet) and the frac is at the bottom of the well at 1850m (6070feet), then there is about 5988 feet in between...that's FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY EIGHT FEET.

Not to mention that most wells are drilled to anywhere from 2000m to 5000m.

Scientifically speaking thats one of the most ignorant statements Iv ever seen.

Actually, his comment is accurate. Every court in western civilization recognizes "agreed statement of facts".

TimG · April 20, 2011

Except unlike the tobacco debate, there exists technology to prove what is being said.

For the record, I was talking about the environment effects of the BP spill - not fracking. I agree the risk from fracking appears to be minimal.

GostHacked · May 1, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1904257618

Hydraboss · May 2, 2011

.......and?

TimG · May 5, 2011

A report on the why we should be cheering the shale gas revolution:

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf

It seems like whenever we have something that will improve the lives of everyone the luddite environmentalists try to block it.

Delingpole puts it well:

Imagine if we were to discover a new form of cheap, clean energy so abundant that it will provide our needs at least for the next two centuries, freeing us from the pervasive early 21st century neurosis of having to worry about “peak oil” or “conserving scarce resources”, causing a worldwide economic boom and with the added side-benefit of creating more fertiliser so that we can not only heat our homes more cheaply than ever before but also eat more cheaply than ever before.
Imagine how Environmentalists would react if such a miracle came into being.

Actually we don’t need to imagine for the miracle is already here. It’s called Shale Gas and is the subject of a thrilling new report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Matt Ridley with a foreword by Professor Freeman Dyson. Neither Ridley nor Dyson is in much doubt that shale gas is the answer to our prayers.

As Dyson puts it in his foreword:

Because of shale gas, the air in Beijing will be cleaned up as the air in London was cleaned up sixty years ago. Because of shale gas, clean air will no longer be a luxury that only rich countries can afford. Because of shale gas, wealth and health will be distributed more equitably over the face of our planet.

And how have the Environmentalists reacted? Why they’re trying to kill the whole thing stone dead, of course.

Edited May 5, 2011 by TimG

TimG · June 4, 2011

Here is why you should always treat documentaries as political commericals:

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/General/gasland-director-hides-full-facts.html

Fox' documentary Gasland, claims that fracking, a way of drilling for natural gas, has polluted water and endangered lives. One of the most alarming scenes is when he lights water that residents claim has been polluted by fracking. It is dramatic and at first glance seems like a slam dunk. I mean they can light their water - it is polluted and there is gas drilling nearby. It must be responsible.
But then a little digging reveals a few inconvenient facts. A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring.

As the report stated there was "troublesome amounts of methane" in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.

But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland.

The environmentalist's motto: never let the facts get between you and a good scare story...

GostHacked · June 4, 2011

Here is why you should always treat documentaries as political commericals:

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/General/gasland-director-hides-full-facts.html

The environmentalist's motto: never let the facts get between you and a good scare story...

But the chemicals used for fracking did not show up in their water until after the fracking begun. Making things worse.

Come on TimG. Use your brain a little.

TimG · June 4, 2011

But the chemicals used for fracking did not show up in their water until after the fracking begun. Making things worse.

I doubt that their is any evidence to support that claim. In any case, you are the one who posted videos of the flaming water as if it was inrefutable evidence of the harms of fracking. You were either completely fooled or deliberately deceptive. Which is it? Edited June 4, 2011 by TimG

RNG · June 11, 2011

I doubt that their is any evidence to support that claim. In any case, you are the one who posted videos of the flaming water as if it was inrefutable evidence of the harms of fracking. You were either completely fooled or deliberately deceptive. Which is it?

There is all kinds of flaming water north of Edmonton, and has been since long before any drilling was done.

Not talking about some of the US experiences, because some of those companies are really a joke, but there is no credible evidence in Canada that fracking has caused harm. It's a little like the university based studies on the harmfulness to the environment of sour gas plants. Each one has reported that they haven't been able to see any yet, but that's just because it hasn't been studies enough so a few million more of your tax dollars will fix that.

Edited June 20, 2011 by RNG

GostHacked · November 2, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/11/02/science-fracking-tremors.html

The company which is using hydraulic fracturing to release gas from shale rock says that the controversial technique probably did trigger earth tremors in April and May.
Cuadrilla Resources, which is drilling for gas in northwestern England, said Wednesday that independent experts concluded that the tremors were due to an unusual combination of geology and operations, and were unlikely to happen again.

The company said local geology would limit any future seismic events to around magnitude 3 on the Richter scale.

The tremor on April 1 measured 2.3 on the Richter scale.

Local campaigners have mounted a "Frack Off" campaign to oppose the drilling technique that cracks open rock layers to free natural gas.

Yup fracking is safe righ?

GostHacked · December 10, 2011

I doubt that their is any evidence to support that claim. In any case, you are the one who posted videos of the flaming water as if it was inrefutable evidence of the harms of fracking. You were either completely fooled or deliberately deceptive. Which is it?

There was evidence, it just took this long for the EPA to admit it.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/09/news/economy/epa_fracking_wyoming/index.htm?hpt=hp_c1

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that chemicals from "fracking," a controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground, have polluted groundwater in Wyoming.
The findings represent the first time in the heated debate over fracking that the agency has drawn such a connection, which has long been claimed by environmental activists.

Wild Bill · December 10, 2011

There was evidence, it just took this long for the EPA to admit it.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/09/news/economy/epa_fracking_wyoming/index.htm?hpt=hp_c1

Once again, we should be cautious about "digital thinking", where we believe something is all one way or the other with no in between.

Fracking cannot ALWAYS pollute groundwater! There have to be pollutants already there for fracking to release. Sometimes there will be problems, likely most times not.

The sensible thing to do would be to encourage drilling companies to test first, then frack. This can be done by making them legally responsible for polluting anyone's underground aquifer.

If it's gonna cause a problem, then frack somewhere else! Lord knows the projects show that there's a helluva lot of shale gas down there. Some estimates are saying enough for 300-500 years at present rates of consumption. A few unfracked boreholes won't be missed.

GostHacked · December 10, 2011

Once again, we should be cautious about "digital thinking", where we believe something is all one way or the other with no in between.

Fracking cannot ALWAYS pollute groundwater! There have to be pollutants already there for fracking to release. Sometimes there will be problems, likely most times not.

The sensible thing to do would be to encourage drilling companies to test first, then frack. This can be done by making them legally responsible for polluting anyone's underground aquifer.

Good luck, see how far you get on that.

If it's gonna cause a problem, then frack somewhere else! Lord knows the projects show that there's a helluva lot of shale gas down there. Some estimates are saying enough for 300-500 years at present rates of consumption. A few unfracked boreholes won't be missed.

Well the EPA says now it does do something to the water table, and in the UK they have linked it to several small quakes that have happened in the areas where they are fracking.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-07/europe/30368594_1_shale-gas-fracking-process-tremors

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/uk-quakes-likely-caused-by-fracking.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/11/02/science-fracking-tremors.html

A company using hydraulic fracturing to release gas from shale rock confirms that the controversial technique probably did trigger earth tremors in northwestern England in April and May.
Cuadrilla Resources said Wednesday that independent experts concluded that the tremors were due to an unusual combination of geology and operations and were unlikely to happen again.

The company said local geology would limit any future seismic events to around magnitude 3 on the Richter scale.

They would limit it to 3.0 What were they able to produce before? And can this explain all the nice tremors in areas that have not had a history of quakes happening that often.

Wild Bill · December 10, 2011

Good luck, see how far you get on that.

Well the EPA says now it does do something to the water table, and in the UK they have linked it to several small quakes that have happened in the areas where they are fracking.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-07/europe/30368594_1_shale-gas-fracking-process-tremors

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/uk-quakes-likely-caused-by-fracking.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/11/02/science-fracking-tremors.html

They would limit it to 3.0 What were they able to produce before? And can this explain all the nice tremors in areas that have not had a history of quakes happening that often.

Well GH, everything is risky! We still need the energy! All those expensive solar panels in Canadian Tire are NOT going to fulfill our needs!

Like everything else, you have to mitigate the risk. The best way perhaps is to give people and corporations strong incentives to do it right in the first place! Stiffen up the laws to give anyone negatively affected some practical recourse.

I mean, if we can set up Human Rights Commissions that allow anyone to file a charge for free, with no need to pay a lawyer then why shouldn't someone who had clean water from a well screwed up by some construction company digging a quarry be able to sue them for free?

I forget which one but there's a Scandinavian country who implemented a very simple anti-pollution law for its waterways. Any company or person drawing water from a waterway had to put their ingress pipe immediately downstream from the pipe pouring out its effluent! That's a simple and strong incentive to clean up your mess!

GostHacked · December 27, 2011

I forget which one but there's a Scandinavian country who implemented a very simple anti-pollution law for its waterways. Any company or person drawing water from a waterway had to put their ingress pipe immediately downstream from the pipe pouring out its effluent! That's a simple and strong incentive to clean up your mess!

That is a pretty good freakin idea. You bet companies would think twice about it.

dre · December 28, 2011

That is a pretty good freakin idea. You bet companies would think twice about it.

Meh... theyd just have the government scrap the law.

GostHacked · April 17, 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/04/17/environment-fracking-earthquake-studies.html

Two separate studies are providing insights into the earth-shaking consequences of the controversial gas extraction process known as fracking.
Both studies confirm that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can trigger manmade earthquakes. The process involves blasting water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground to fracture rock to obtain oil and natural gas.

Reports out of the USA and the UK are proving similar findings.

Wild Bill · April 20, 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/04/17/environment-fracking-earthquake-studies.html

Reports out of the USA and the UK are proving similar findings.

GH, I admire your concern but you have to understand that without a technical background it is easy to get snowed! Many enviromentalists are not very technical. When they make movies they can make many mistakes but they always seem to make them in their own favour. They have already decided how something works and will never be convinced by scientific evidence, because they can't understand it anyway!

It's advertising! Once of the classic methods that still fools people every day is the old "4 out of 5 doctors prefer..." trick. You can make the claim that 4 out of 5 homes have flammable gas in their well water. All you have to do is keep searching through hundreds if not thousands of such homes until you find 4 with the problem. Then you just take one out of all the others and you can legally claim that 4 out of 5 experience the problem! To the layman, it sounds as if 80% of the people with wells living near some fracking have the problem.

I grew up in an area where many wells had much sulfur gas in the water. Our own family home had clean water and so did our immediate neighbour. Then a 3rd party built a house and drilled a new well to the same depth as the other two. Not only did he have much sulfur gas but the other two wells did also! Why? Because there were many pockets down in the ground of softer materials that may have blocked the stuff until the drilling vibrations broke a layer or two up, allowing the sulfur to flow where it did not before.

My point is that someone could get gas in their water even without fracking going on. A ground tremor could cause it. To prove something you would need to properly investigate. It's guaranteed that those who make the documentary you watched did NOT properly investigate! They had made up their minds before they started filming.

Being technically inclined, I have always had difficulty with such "documentaries". I understand much of what they offer as "scientific" evidence and often see grievous flaws. Michael Moore just turns my stomach! I much prefer Penn and Teller.

The reason I am bothered is that when someone cries wolf so often how can you tell if there's really a wolf there? It's important to know! But if I got all excited every time I watched one of those biased documentaries I would give myself high blood pressure problems for nothing.

Sometimes oil companies and such MAY be biased too! I am not so naive as to think them all innocents. However, I just can't take documentaries on the CBC or whatever as worthwhile evidence against them. I am left to make up my own mind, with only my own background to fall back on.