North American Shale

[Nick Danger]

There is well in excess of 50 years of information, data and real time results. To my knowledge, none of it supports the contentions that you suggest

How many gas wells were undergoing fracturing 50 years ago ? What were their proximity to each other ? What sort of chemicals were in use ?

Despite the eco-lobby's attempts in transforming the practice of fracking into a contemporary issue, the fact remains it does not represent the doom-n-gloom scenario that is being painted. The evidence you seek is right in front of your nose and there are reams of info/documents that support the overall safety of the practice.

Hook me up, please. A challenge you've dodged a few times already in this thread. What is your reaction to the reams of info/documents detailing the toxic side-effects of fracking ? I don't doubt that the eco-lobby is over-playing the issue somewhat, but as I have stated a number of times already I have yet to see a satisfactory case made for the "overall safety of the practice", in fact of what I have read the more objective studies readily admit to the downside. They go on to say that this downside can be minimized with sufficient effort but for the most part the complaints that are circulating point to bad practices on the part of the gas field developers.

You want to question it, that's great - but in the absence of any tangible proof (as opposed to theory or fiction), why would the industry shut-down simply to accommodate an unfounded concern?

I don't for a second think they would, I haven't even said they should. All I've been saying all along is proceed with caution.

 

[damngrumpy]

The Bakken project I understand covers six states and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and
perhaps Manitoba. It high grade shale crude and the Saudi Government should be seeking
lower prices for their product as the size of this thing is way bigger that the Saudi oil can
match. Its a good project and the two countries should work together for continental supply.

 

[captain morgan]

How many gas wells were undergoing fracturing 50 years ago ? What were their proximity to each other ? What sort of chemicals were in use ?

Look it up yourself

AccuMap | IHS
This one will cost you about $20k but is well worth it, especially in the name of research

here's another source with decades of records
Home

Hook me up, please. A challenge you've dodged a few times already in this thread. What is your reaction to the reams of info/documents detailing the toxic side-effects of fracking ? I don't doubt that the eco-lobby is over-playing the issue somewhat, but as I have stated a number of times already I have yet to see a satisfactory case made for the "overall safety of the practice", in fact of what I have read the more objective studies readily admit to the downside. They go on to say that this downside can be minimized with sufficient effort but for the most part the complaints that are circulating point to bad practices on the part of the gas field developers.

See above, and in response to the demands for proof - you want the industry to:

1. Do your work for you
2. Prove a negative

Get off yer rump and bring some real hard, tangible info to the table to support your position... The industry has brought their info - you don't approve of it and now demand they do more?

Really, do it yourself or get the lobbies to fund these multi year, multi region, multi zone (geological) and multi well studies themselves.

Money.

Yes... Time for the eco-lobbies to put their money where their mouth is and come up with more than theory and speculation.

 

[Nick Danger]

He plays the indignant card. That my friend, is a cop out.

 

[hunboldt]

He plays the indignant card. That my friend, is a cop out.

Welcome to the CC board Std. op procedure, Nick......

You raised a good question. Personally, I would';t deal with a 'Junior Oil and Gas company' unless they posted 100% bond. Its an industry full of people ' on the make'.

That said, the Bakken formation is a good place for the use of Hydraulic fracturing- stable overlay, deep 'mudrock', dry air for dewaterng.. If you are investing, supply and support firms are a better use f r your funds than 'industry juniors'.

 

[petros]

How many gas wells were undergoing fracturing 50 years ago ? What were their proximity to each other ? What sort of chemicals were in use ?

Did you not read the study? Hydraulic fracturing is safe. Zero brine or fluids found in drinking water.

 

[captain morgan]

He plays the indignant card. That my friend, is a cop out.

What's indignant?

You are the one with questions and want to understand the history. More over, you demand that someone else spend the time and money to do the work and you're prepared to sit back and critique... All I'm saying here is that the industry and a lot of the regulatory bodies don't feel the same way you do, so, the suggestion that the industry get it's wings clipped until such time that you are comfortable is a highly unlikely scenario

 

[petros]

First coal is bad so coal is replaced with NG. Now NG is bad which leaves freezing your *** off in the dark as the next option. That doesn't sound comfortable at all.

 

[captain morgan]

Well, the next option is good intentions and unicorns and rainbows and cinnamon buns.

Really makes you wonder if these people give any kind of fore thought to what they really want

 

[petros]

Have you ever tried to bake cinnamon buns in a wood fired oven? If no, then I suggest you remove the cinnamon buns from the list. It's not a good experience.

 

[captain morgan]

I figured that the Unicorns would be really helpful in the baking epartment

 

[Nick Danger]

Did you not read the study? Hydraulic fracturing is safe. Zero brine or fluids found in drinking water.

Did you not read it ? It says methane contamination of groundwater near active wells, with methane consistent with that found at greater depths, and in high enough concentrations to produce a potential explosion hazard. Somehow I don't think "safe" is an adequate descriptor in this case


Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n = 34). Average δ13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7‰ and -54 ± 11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These δ13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and δ2H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentration samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.

You are the one with questions and want to understand the history. More over, you demand that someone else spend the time and money to do the work and you're prepared to sit back and critique... All I'm saying here is that the industry and a lot of the regulatory bodies don't feel the same way you do, so, the suggestion that the industry get it's wings clipped until such time that you are comfortable is a highly unlikely scenario

That's exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking for a declaration of responsibility from those poised to reap billions from the harvest of shale gas to do their absolute best to minimize risk to the surrounding environment, and regulatory controls to ensure that happens. I do wonder why you are so dead set against such precautions but that doesn't change my position.

 

[petros]

Did you not read it ? It says methane contamination of groundwater near active wells, with methane consistent with that found at greater depths, and in high enough concentrations to produce a potential explosion hazard. Somehow I don't think "safe" is an adequate descriptor in this case.

Is it fracturing or drilling you have an issue with?
Didn't they fully explain the differences when you watched Gasland?

 

[Nick Danger]

Is it fracturing or drilling you have an issue with?
Didn't they fully explain the differences when you watched Gasland?

I have an issue with toxic side effects of either, but the evidence indicates that fracturing carries the greater risk by far.

 

[petros]

There is no toxicity from frakking. Didn't you read the article?

 

[Nick Danger]

There is no toxicity from frakking. Didn't you read the article?

Yes I did, and I understand the claims that article makes that toxicity is higher around active gas wells. What is it about this that you are having difficulty with ?

The Environmental Protection Agency in the US is currently undertaking an extensive study of the issues surrounding natural gas extraction for projected release in November of this year. This from their website:

Although the national study should enhance our scientific knowledge, some concerns associated with overall natural gas and shale gas extraction, including hydraulic fracturing, are already well known. These operations can result in a number of potential impacts to the environment, including:

• Stress on surface water and ground water supplies from the withdrawal of large volumes of water used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing;
• Contamination of underground sources of drinking water and surface waters resulting from spills, faulty well construction, or by other means;
• Adverse impacts from discharges into surface waters or from disposal into underground injection wells; and
• Air pollution resulting from the release of volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gases.

Because natural gas development is increasing rapidly in many regions, prudent steps to reduce these impacts are essential now even as further research to understand potential risks continues.

 

[petros]

From what? What part of no fracturing fluids or brine do you not grasp? It seems you have issues with drilling more so than fracturing. Which is it?

If you're going to argue something, at least know what you're arguing about.

 

[Nick Danger]

I was looking at the part that said " we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction."

If you're going to argue something, at least know what you're arguing about.

 

[petros]

And that is or isn't caused by fracturing?

 

[Nick Danger]

Does it really matter ? Frakking has been suggested as a cause, as has faulty well casings where the hole penetrates existing groundwater aquifers. The point is that the toxicity is directly related to the gas wells.