You want to discuss fracking then you will be discussing water,it's only fair to discuss and compare everyone who is contaminating it,thats no agenda,not on my part anyways.
Apache finds massive Canadian shale-gas field
- Thread starter skookumchuck
- Start date
Yes there is a difference- if fracking causes damage to water systems that peole depend on. I do not fall hole hog for Oil/Gas compnaies - Nor the other end of the spectrum- There is enough information on problems from fracking to cause major concerns-
Yes it is. It's your very agenda that necessitates your need to shift the blame/topic and attempt to distract from the problems you can't/won't face in your industry.
I'm not surprised that had to be explained to you. Your agenda has a great deal of control over your ability to be objective, let alone honest and able to think clearly.
I'm equally not surprised I have to post this, for a third time...
Giving further evidence of your agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
And there is enough information on problems from farming and ranching yet it causes no concerns.
Heres a nice little read on water usage in Alberta,also keep in mind that farmers can pretty well do anything they want to their land with no inspectors or permits so industry would have more data then farmers.
http://www.bless.ab.ca/Documents/EndToEnd/MaMRPChap4v3.pdf
There is plenty of speculation posted but very little proof (if any).
Every hole poked for extraction and exploration would kill every aquifer within the first day of drilling without any fracking at all.
Fracking fluid is mainly acidic to soften the carbonates in the country rock and to utilize the CO2 produced to boost fracking pressures.
There is nothing to lube because there is no drilling in facking.
What are they 11 herbs and spices in the Col's recipe? Is it proprietary? If you knew how to make KFC, would you buy KFC? Is KFC good for you? Not really, no unless it's in moderation.
Dyes? If wanted to use a dye it would be veggie based and harmless but why would they be used if the fracking fluid itself is allegedly already being used as a marker?
12/08/2011: EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review
Even EPA doesn't know if it is from fracking or from drilling or ???. Nothing definitive there.
Methane is a naturally occurring in dirt, overuse of an aquifer will allow these gases to migrate into the void. Keep adding more and more water wells and the problem compounds.
People are nuts and will lie through their teeth to make a dollar. The Petroleum Technology Research Centre Releases Its Findings on the Petro-Find Geochem Ltd. Report Claiming Leaks of CO2 from the Weyburn EOR Field
If fracking is problematic then CCS will be a 100% failure. The pressures dealt with are similar and so is the strata.
As mentioned in the NFU article, CAPP's does have reccomendations which are as follows:
CAPP's operating practices include:
— Publicly disclosing chemical ingredients used in fracking fluid (nothing to hide but proprietary formulations)
— Better identifying and managing the risks associated with the fluids and ultimately increasing the market demand for safer fluids. (would mean a standarized fluid eliminating patent protection?)
— Developing domestic water-well sampling programs and participating in regional groundwater monitoring programs. (double testing from both public and indusry for "I told you so" purposes)
— Designing and installing wellbores in a manner that maintains integrity before fracking begins. (highest potential for turbation)
— Ensuring water withdrawal limits are not exceeded, monitoring water sources and collecting and reporting water use data. (great idea, monitor domestic consumption as well opening the door to consumption fees and taxation for domestic use)
— Identifying, evaluating and mitigating potential risks of transporting, handing, storing and disposing of fluids used in fracking. (WHIMIS standards are the norm, are they not currently being utilized? )
60 years of fracking.....
Every hole poked for extraction and exploration would kill every aquifer within the first day of drilling without any fracking at all.
Fracking fluid is mainly acidic to soften the carbonates in the country rock and to utilize the CO2 produced to boost fracking pressures.
There is nothing to lube because there is no drilling in facking.
What are they 11 herbs and spices in the Col's recipe? Is it proprietary? If you knew how to make KFC, would you buy KFC? Is KFC good for you? Not really, no unless it's in moderation.
Dyes? If wanted to use a dye it would be veggie based and harmless but why would they be used if the fracking fluid itself is allegedly already being used as a marker?
12/08/2011: EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review
Even EPA doesn't know if it is from fracking or from drilling or ???. Nothing definitive there.
Methane is a naturally occurring in dirt, overuse of an aquifer will allow these gases to migrate into the void. Keep adding more and more water wells and the problem compounds.
People are nuts and will lie through their teeth to make a dollar. The Petroleum Technology Research Centre Releases Its Findings on the Petro-Find Geochem Ltd. Report Claiming Leaks of CO2 from the Weyburn EOR Field
If fracking is problematic then CCS will be a 100% failure. The pressures dealt with are similar and so is the strata.
As mentioned in the NFU article, CAPP's does have reccomendations which are as follows:
CAPP's operating practices include:
— Publicly disclosing chemical ingredients used in fracking fluid (nothing to hide but proprietary formulations)
— Better identifying and managing the risks associated with the fluids and ultimately increasing the market demand for safer fluids. (would mean a standarized fluid eliminating patent protection?)
— Developing domestic water-well sampling programs and participating in regional groundwater monitoring programs. (double testing from both public and indusry for "I told you so" purposes)
— Designing and installing wellbores in a manner that maintains integrity before fracking begins. (highest potential for turbation)
— Ensuring water withdrawal limits are not exceeded, monitoring water sources and collecting and reporting water use data. (great idea, monitor domestic consumption as well opening the door to consumption fees and taxation for domestic use)
— Identifying, evaluating and mitigating potential risks of transporting, handing, storing and disposing of fluids used in fracking. (WHIMIS standards are the norm, are they not currently being utilized? )
60 years of fracking.....
Your ignoring of the facts is understandable since it affects your livelihood. You might start to have to get a conscience. Yu remind me of a Fundie who poo poos evolution because it would interfere with his other beliefs.
You sure do like your red herrings...
It's evidence. Even the industry has made admissions.
Absolutely correct. Given the millions of gallons of un-reclaimed fracking fluid. You make an excellent point about how chemicals in greater concentrations, are toxic and far more detrimental to the environment.
Because the industry claims the bulk of the evidence is naturally occurring. An identifiable marker, would remove any ability to deny culpability.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...ef35bd26a80d6ce3852579600065c94e!OpenDocument
But enough to warrant further investigation. And with the mounting evidence, there should be a moratorium placed on fracking until it's complete.
True. In areas where the population growth was stagnant, but fracking began, the pressure on the aquifer, is the result of fracking.
Thanks for pointing out another hazard of fracking.
And the oil and gas sector is not immune to the presence of people of that nature.
That being an excellent example.
I just follow the rules to a tee,thats all. I dont want to end up in court for years and years.
It's the oil company that would run me off if any of their policies and procedures are not followed.
Sorry if you dont get that part Clff.
Everything we do is documented,permited,photographed and video taped during every stage.
It's the oil company that would run me off if any of their policies and procedures are not followed.
Sorry if you dont get that part Clff.
Everything we do is documented,permited,photographed and video taped during every stage.
Wow, talk about missing the point...
Zzzooommm!!!
Keep going, you mount the evidence against your credibility and ability to comprehend, with every post, lol.
And yet the evidence of negative impacts on the environment keeps on increasing...
Wow, talk about missing the point...
Zzzooommm!!!
Keep going, you mount the evidence against your credibility and ability to comprehend, with every post, lol.
FIFY.
Actually I have better things to do then argue with some one who clearly just has a hate on for oil and gas.
Complete evidence indicating an issue or potential for an issue?
Million of gallons at what depth?
The fractures and fluids themselves are the markers and are tracked as the fracking process is used. Fracking fliuid will give an echo at a completely difference frequency than the surrounding rock and gas.
60 years of fracking and the evidence is marginal at best.
How does pressure at 3000m effect aquifers at 30m?
Who is fracking their water well?
Use your noodle and you won't become one of them.
OK, you have be pulling my chain!
Nobody that's been here as long as you have and has as many thumbs up in their control panel as you have, from me, for your defence of the oil and gas sector, can be that stupid.
I obviously gave you far to much credit.
Easy out when the going gets rough..... See what you want to see and damn anyone who dares question....
Evidence indicating a pressing issue.
At many ranges. Drilling doesn't have a set depth.
Not when diluted in an aquifer.
Ya, that must be why even the industry has made admissions.
Can you pick a couple more numbers out of thin air that are not indicative of a standard practice.
Comprehension issues, or post blaze posting?
Here's the whole quote...
"True. In areas where the population growth was stagnant, but fracking began, the pressure on the aquifer, is the result of fracking."
I'll expand on that so you don't make the same mistake twice....
Fracking requires a huge amount of water, common practice is to tap local aquifers, thus increasing pressure on local aquifers.
Therefore, fracking is the cause of the depletion and contamination of the aquifer, by methane.
Try again.
I am, hence my reliance on evidence. Not conjecture.
Interesting,at cold lake they do drill for water but it's brackish water and undrinkable,they use that for processing and whatever. In SK we haul a truckload in with the service rig.
Everyone in a bank at the time of a robbery is a suspect until proven otherwise.
What makes a shallow gas well less feasible than one at depth? Is drill the same as fracking?
How are they getting into an aquifer?
What sort of admissions? That shallow fracking has potential for issues?
From the air? Really? You sure about that?
It's all the fault of the frackers and not expanding pressures from domestic use? No surface water is trucked in or drawn from lakes, rivers, streams? It's all from "the aquifer" and all potable?
I've read the posted "evidence" too. I hope you aren't refering to the experimental coal bed fracking that is stated in the Ernst Vs EnCana?
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Study (2004)
Prior to 1997, EPA considered hydraulic fracturing to be a well stimulation technique associated with production and therefore not subject to UIC. The Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) challenged EPA’s opinion on hydraulic fracturing regulation in 1994, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells was indeed subject to the SDWA and UIC regulations under Alabama’s UIC program in 1997.
EPA began a study on hydraulic fracturing used in coalbed methane reservoirs in 1999 to evaluate the potential risks to USDWs. The study focused on coalbed methane reservoirs because they are typically closer to the surface and in greater proximity to USDWs compared to conventional gas reservoirs. EPA published the coalbed methane study, entitled Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (EPA 816-R-04-003) in 2004. The published study received both internal and external peer review, and public comment on study design and incident information. EPA concluded that there was little to no risk of fracturing fluid contaminating underground sources of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane production wells. EPA retained the right, however, to conduct additional studies in the future. As a precautionary measure, the Agency also entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in 2003 (PDF) (9 pp., 331 K, about PDF) with companies that conduct hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells to eliminate use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids.
Be careful not to jump on a bandwagon that has square wheels and can't go anywhere.
Scroll a little further down Durpy.
Findings in the Two Deep Water Monitoring Wells:
EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time.
Findings in the Private and Public Drinking Water Wells:
EPA also updated its sampling of Pavillion area drinking water wells. Chemicals detected in the most recent samples are consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds. The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production. Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards. In the fall of 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reviewed EPA’s data and recommended that affected well owners take several precautionary steps, including using alternate sources of water for drinking and cooking, and ventilation when showering. Those recommendations remain in place and Encana has been funding the provision of alternate water supplies.
EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time.
Findings in the Private and Public Drinking Water Wells:
EPA also updated its sampling of Pavillion area drinking water wells. Chemicals detected in the most recent samples are consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds. The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production. Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards. In the fall of 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reviewed EPA’s data and recommended that affected well owners take several precautionary steps, including using alternate sources of water for drinking and cooking, and ventilation when showering. Those recommendations remain in place and Encana has been funding the provision of alternate water supplies.
Synthetic chemicals are those compounds not found naturally on Earth...the EPA knows where it came from, EnCana is paying money now to bring in clean drinking water for the people in the area.