North American Shale
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Please, point me in the right direction. I've asked a few times but have yet to see much other than empty claims and sarcasm. Where did you guys learn how to debate ?
What does the NRC say about frakking? That might be a good place to start. No bias there.
PS..when you search, use the term hydraulic fracturing instead of frakking. You'll learn more.
Last edited:
Fire them off an email.
National Academy of Sciences says.....
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 mean to tell me that in shale gas formations, they find chemical traces in the surrounding ground water? Do you understand why that's flawed science if they weren't testing the water to establish the levels prior to drilling?
While there have been some issues with fracking, a lot of what I've seen puts it at much less widespread than the alarmists would like us to believe.
Thanks for that petros. The closing line makes the same point that I have been trying to drive home all along, that the science is incomplete and that we have to take greater care than we are now.
If you're going to try to base your opinion on what's being delivered to you, my suggestion is to consider a wide variety of publications from all sides of the argument.
It's a balancing act between the people who have the most to gain from drilling, and the people who have the most to lose from drilling. And often, the loud environmental lobby is not living in it, does not have much to lose from it, and stands everything to gain from telling you the sky is falling. Just as the oil companies have everything to gain from telling you nothing is wrong, ever.
What I find the most reliable source of info is the oilpatch workers. They're living in it. Hell they're being doused in it. They're more familiar with the geological formations, the chemicals, the casing, etc., than any of the loudmouths arguing the issue on tv.
Try hunting down trade publications for oil patch guys.
It doesn't matter what the 'greasy roughneck' (get bent by the way), knows. It matters what the oil company knows, what the geologist knows, what the engineers know, what the consultant knows, and what the service companies who come in to work the well know. Then, once the completions are done, it matters what the operators know, what the field foreman knows, what the pipeliners know, and on and on. The 'greasy roughneck', knows how to make pipe spin. He's a digger. That's his job. The industry is much bigger, broader, and more involved, than the uninformed notion of a roughneck pulling oil out of the ground.
https://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy-...cp.r_qf.&fp=3305d1e9deb160ae&biw=1093&bih=614
The closing lines says to do so to "comfort" people not because they weren't careful. So much for the yuppies eh?
Geologists eh? My wife is boinking a geologist. I'll have to ask him what he thinks.
Calm down there Alice... Don't want you blowing a blood vessel or anything.
The chart says you're only at five, but I think it's much higher
Why would I? I find 1500% more alder where alder grow, than I do where they don't. Finding more methane where there are oil formations, isn't, in and of itself, alarming.
Yours will have a tomorrow too - and someone else will have to clean it up.
And please DO learn to read, snapdragon
No mistaking your inputs champ... Tough to not to recognize Standard Oil as they were the first big monopoly to fall.
Maybe think about posting something that either an accurate reflection of what you really want to say or find an example to blame on Harper that isn't over 100 years old, m'kay?
No mistaking your inability to read either. Same brain as Kakato in figuring out Ontario oil isn't the same as Alberta oil but the consequences are the same when corners are cut. All you are is Kakato with spellcheck