Fracking: Why Have We Allowed the Left to Make It a Dirty Word?

[petros]

Commercial science has always been at the forefront.

 

[wulfie68]

That's what some say and others say it is dangerous.

He said, she said. It's a question of who's spinning and who's researching.

The ones who say "fracking" is dangerous are uneducated on the issue and engaging in spin hysterics.

One flash point is always "they won't tell us whats in the chemicals they use". Some of the exact concentrations and mix ratios are closely held trade secrets but the base chemicals are not. The chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing all have Material Safety Data sheets detailing the compositions, safe handling techniques, required protective equipment and first aid measures when they are to be handled by workers on the surface. That is required by federal law in both the US and Canada (anyone here ever heard of WHMIS?).

Another is the spiel about contamination of ground water from the chemicals and how it migrates up through the various strata. First off, there is a lack of appreciation for how difficult this is, on a physical level. You have layer upon layer of rock and fluid (there are usually numerous salt and fresh water aquifers on the way down to the petroleum deposits). This rock and fluid exerts enormous pressures on everything below it (this pressure is required to actually form the hydrocarbon compounds that constitute petroleum). The analogy I use is a brick wall, where each layer of bricks is a different layer of the strata; hydraulic fracturing would be equivalent to putting pressure on the mortar seam between the two bottom layers of brick, forcing a crack outward. Now there is a lot more engineering involved before companies just randomly start trying to create these fissures: they want to create flow channels to their well-bore, not a path by which the substance they are attempting to harvest can escape.

This all leads me to yet another important point in this discussion that is all too often overlooked: if the strata were that permeable so as to allow easy communication within the layers, the petroleum deposits (be they oil or gas) would escape and not be there to be harvested.

All this being said, there can be contamination: poor seals in the well bore is the main culprit below the surface. As they drill a well, companies insert steel casings at various intervals and cement them into place, to provide a barrier between zones. If the cement doesn't bond properly to the rock in the well bore, there can be leaks. This does occur at times, especially in shallower zones that are highly porous and permeable. The other is improper handling at surface of the fluids, a problem that is present in any industry where chemicals are handled.

 

[Tonington]

One flash point is always "they won't tell us whats in the chemicals they use". Some of the exact concentrations and mix ratios are closely held trade secrets but the base chemicals are not. The chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing all have Material Safety Data sheets detailing the compositions, safe handling techniques, required protective equipment and first aid measures when they are to be handled by workers on the surface. That is required by federal law in both the US and Canada (anyone here ever heard of WHMIS?).

Agree with pretty much everything you wrote in that post, with the exception of the MSDS and WHMIS. WHMIS does not apply to households. If the MSDS mentioned precautions and exposure limits for households in the area, I'm sure the lawyers would be all over that as an admission of some risk of release, and that opens them up to damages. The exemption from reporting chemical release to the EPA was given because the industry lobbied that the risk was little to none. Moreover, the households don't have to be given copies of MSDS.