To Hell and Frack: UK Shale Gas Reserves

[rainbow]

I and other in this thread already have. FUck off and troll someone else.

As I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[pErvinalia]

What, have I been transported back to ratskep 2 years ago? Troll off.

[rainbow]

What, have I been transported back to ratskep 2 years ago? Troll off.

No, you've been transported back to kindergarten. That is about your level of debate.
Leave it to those that understand what they are talking about, and play nicely in the sandpit.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. Have you ever delivered anything more than an empty one-liner? Oh look, you delivered two of them above. I stand corrected.

The irony of someone who hasn't posted anything of substance for at least 5 years attacking someone else over their "level of debate". Fuck off.

[rainbow]

[macdoc]

hus, it is simple logic that if the fracking rules favor gas exploration and extraction, this represents the best judgment of the legislature which made the rules, based on their collective decisions as to the best course of action considering ALL points of view...or not.

logic and reality have nothing to do with each other.

The reality is the the fossil fuel interests have bought the US legislature so just about the only thing "represented" is the pocket bulge of the representative and the goals of the fossil interests.....nada for the public weal.
and your lame excuse for the handcuffing the repuglies have untaken is that the process needs a "check".

Sure....

then when you get assholes like Bush and Chaney on board you get shite like this

Although the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act - the "Halliburton Loophole" - it made one small exception: diesel fuel. The Policy Act states that the term “underground injection,” as it relates to the Safe Drinking Water Act, “excludes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities [italics added].” But a congressional investigation has found that oil and gas service companies used tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel in fracking operations between 2005 and 2009, thus violating the Safe Drinking Water Act. Diesel fuel contains a number of toxic constituents including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems.[18]

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the congressional committee noted that between 2005 and 2009, “oil and gas service companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states.” None of the companies sought or received permits to do so. “This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law.” Yet because the necessary environmental reviews were circumvented, the companies were unable to provide data on whether they had used diesel in fracking operations in or near underground sources of drinking water.[18]

The EPA is conducting its own study of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies, due out in late 2012. It is unknown whether companies that have violated the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2005 be held accountable. Matt Armstrong, a lawyer with the Washington firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents several oil and gas companies, told the New York Times: “Everyone understands that E.P.A. is at least interested in regulating fracking.” But: “Whether the E.P.A. has the chutzpah to try to impose retroactive liability for use of diesel in fracking, well, everyone is in a wait-and-see mode. I suspect it will have a significant fight on its hands if it tried it do that.”[18]

SciAm has it correct

* Energy & Sustainability

Safety First, Fracking Second

Drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe

By The Editors


A decade ago layers of shale lying deep underground supplied only 1 percent of America’s natural gas. Today they provide 30 percent. Drillers are rushing to hydraulically fracture, or “frack,” shales in a growing list of U.S. states. That is good news for national energy security, as well as for the global climate, because burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal. The benefits come with risks, however, that state and federal governments have yet to grapple with.

Public fears are growing about contamination of drinking-water supplies from the chemicals used in fracking and from the methane gas itself. Field tests show that those worries are not unfounded. A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away. Yet states have let companies proceed without adequate regulations. They must begin to provide more effective oversight, and the federal government should step in, too.

Nowhere is the rush to frack, or the uproar, greater than in New York. In July, Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a ban on fracking. The State Department of Environmental Conservation released an environmental impact statement and was to propose regulations in October. After a public comment period, which will end in early December, the department plans to issue regulations, and drilling most likely will begin. Fracking is already widespread in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania.

All these states are flying blind. A long list of technical questions remains unanswered about the ways the practice could contaminate drinking water, the extent to which it already has, and what the industry could do to reduce the risks. To fill this gap, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now conducting comprehensive field research. Preliminary results are due in late 2012. Until then, states should put the brakes on the drillers. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie set an example in August when he vetoed a bill that would permanently ban fracking, then approved a one-year moratorium so his state could consider the results of federal studies. The EPA, for its part, could speed up its work.

In addition to bringing some rigor to the debate over fracking, the federal government needs to establish common standards. Many in the gas industry say they are already sufficiently regulated by states, but this assurance is inadequate. For example, Pennsylvania regulators propose to extend a well operator’s liability for water quality out to 2,500 feet from a well, even though horizontal bores from the central well can stretch as far as 5,000 feet.

more
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-second

I don't have a problem with the technology if it's regulated and safe .....right now it's neither.
But of course nukes are over regulated due to phantom fears from idjit tree huggers.

Meanwhile the world get warmer

[Seth]

hus, it is simple logic that if the fracking rules favor gas exploration and extraction, this represents the best judgment of the legislature which made the rules, based on their collective decisions as to the best course of action considering ALL points of view...or not.

logic and reality have nothing to do with each other.

The reality is the the fossil fuel interests have bought the US legislature so just about the only thing "represented" is the pocket bulge of the representative and the goals of the fossil interests.....nada for the public weal.
and your lame excuse for the handcuffing the repuglies have untaken is that the process needs a "check".

So you claim. But that's just sour grapes politicking. Welcome to "democracy," where those elected by the majority get to make the rules...Talk about hoist on your own petard...

Sure....

then when you get assholes like Bush and Chaney on board you get shite like this

Although the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act - the "Halliburton Loophole" - it made one small exception: diesel fuel. The Policy Act states that the term “underground injection,” as it relates to the Safe Drinking Water Act, “excludes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities [italics added].” But a congressional investigation has found that oil and gas service companies used tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel in fracking operations between 2005 and 2009, thus violating the Safe Drinking Water Act. Diesel fuel contains a number of toxic constituents including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems.[18]

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the congressional committee noted that between 2005 and 2009, “oil and gas service companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states.” None of the companies sought or received permits to do so. “This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law.” Yet because the necessary environmental reviews were circumvented, the companies were unable to provide data on whether they had used diesel in fracking operations in or near underground sources of drinking water.[18]

The EPA is conducting its own study of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies, due out in late 2012. It is unknown whether companies that have violated the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2005 be held accountable. Matt Armstrong, a lawyer with the Washington firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents several oil and gas companies, told the New York Times: “Everyone understands that E.P.A. is at least interested in regulating fracking.” But: “Whether the E.P.A. has the chutzpah to try to impose retroactive liability for use of diesel in fracking, well, everyone is in a wait-and-see mode. I suspect it will have a significant fight on its hands if it tried it do that.”[18]

SciAm has it correct

Well, two things: First, I note that not one word in the quotes you provide allege that there has been any actual contamination of drinking water from all this diesel fuel injection. That's because there hasn't been any such contamination documented but once in the US.

Second, I make note that pumping diesel back into the ground thousands of feet UNDER water tables is nothing more than putting it back where it came from because diesel fuel is derived from fossil fuel resources in the first place, which means all those nasty chemicals the eco-luddites complain about are already down there.

I like to call diesel frack injection "carbon sequestration."

* Energy & Sustainability

Safety First, Fracking Second

Drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe

By The Editors


A decade ago layers of shale lying deep underground supplied only 1 percent of America’s natural gas. Today they provide 30 percent. Drillers are rushing to hydraulically fracture, or “frack,” shales in a growing list of U.S. states. That is good news for national energy security, as well as for the global climate, because burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal. The benefits come with risks, however, that state and federal governments have yet to grapple with.

Public fears are growing about contamination of drinking-water supplies from the chemicals used in fracking and from the methane gas itself. Field tests show that those worries are not unfounded. A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away. Yet states have let companies proceed without adequate regulations. They must begin to provide more effective oversight, and the federal government should step in, too.

Nowhere is the rush to frack, or the uproar, greater than in New York. In July, Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a ban on fracking. The State Department of Environmental Conservation released an environmental impact statement and was to propose regulations in October. After a public comment period, which will end in early December, the department plans to issue regulations, and drilling most likely will begin. Fracking is already widespread in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania.

All these states are flying blind. A long list of technical questions remains unanswered about the ways the practice could contaminate drinking water, the extent to which it already has, and what the industry could do to reduce the risks. To fill this gap, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now conducting comprehensive field research. Preliminary results are due in late 2012. Until then, states should put the brakes on the drillers. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie set an example in August when he vetoed a bill that would permanently ban fracking, then approved a one-year moratorium so his state could consider the results of federal studies. The EPA, for its part, could speed up its work.

In addition to bringing some rigor to the debate over fracking, the federal government needs to establish common standards. Many in the gas industry say they are already sufficiently regulated by states, but this assurance is inadequate. For example, Pennsylvania regulators propose to extend a well operator’s liability for water quality out to 2,500 feet from a well, even though horizontal bores from the central well can stretch as far as 5,000 feet.

more
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-second

I don't have a problem with the technology if it's regulated and safe .....right now it's neither.
But of course nukes are over regulated due to phantom fears from idjit tree huggers.

Meanwhile the world get warmer
[/quote]

[rainbow]

A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away.

What does this statement mean?
If I measure the methane levels in wells near fracking sites and find methane lower in some, and higher in others ("dozens"), how does this show any causal relationship between the two?
How many wells were tested?
Did they test the methane isotopically to determine whether it came from the fracking operations?
Did they investigate these wells to show any other trace chemicals (you know these toxic chemicals they put in the fracking fluid) that would tie the contamination to fracking?

[pErvinalia]

As pointed out to you earlier, it's often the case that baseline studies weren't done, so it's not possible to determine whether this is the natural condition of the water, or whether this has occurred due to contamination. There's been a number of cases here in Oz where rivers have started very visibly bubbling and in some cases become flammable soon after fracking in the vicinity begins. The gas companies claim this is naturally occurring. The old cockies claim they have never seen it before in their long lives in the area. But it can't be proved because no baseline studies were done.

[rainbow]

Fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

[rainbow]

Opponents of Fracking say the country might sink if it's allowed












Written by IainB
















Topics: natural gas, Fracking, floaters, sink


Monday, 3 June 2013



A-FUK believe this is how Britain will look if Fracking takes place







Opponents to the controversial gas extraction technique, Fracking, have brought forward a remarkable conclusion to their biggest study to date.

"If we extract the gas from the shale in the UK the country will sink," said Pierce Green, spokesperson for Against Fracking in the UK, a lobby group.

The sensational revelation that the gas in the shale rocks that make up approximately seventy five percent of the UK's rocks is what keeps the island afloat has very little scientific evidence, but sounds good.

"We've been using things that sound good in all our arguments," said Green. "We don't actually do any science or studies the way the Fracking companies have to. But then we're not pumping hot chemical laden water into the ground under high pressure."

Fracking works like opening a lemonade bottle, where the gas erupts out of the liquid; only without lemonade, a bottle or a lid to open. Opponents to Fracking have claimed that Fracking contaminates groundwater, forcing millions of pounds worth of research that found it didn't. They have also claimed that Fracking causes earthquakes, and have blamed fracking for every major earthquake across the globe in the past forty years. After more millions of pounds of research, it has been discovered that it can cause earth tremors and so will only be done in areas where this isn't important. Like Blackpool.

Now comes the claim that the gas is making the UK buoyant.

"If we replace the gas in the rock with water," said Green, "the UK will sink. Can we risk it?"

Cuadrilla spokesman, Clayton Hill, just buried his head in his hands and groaned.

[PsychoSerenity]

I don't get how that's supposed to be funny. An utterly outrageous spoof argument is funny if the real arguments people are making are also bordering on the outrageous - but the majority of arguments against fracking are entirely sensible.

[rainbow]

I don't get how that's supposed to be funny. An utterly outrageous spoof argument is funny if the real arguments people are making are also bordering on the outrageous - but the majority of arguments against fracking are entirely sensible.

I don't think they are sensible.

[Tyrannical]

I wonder if fracking prevents earthquakes by bleeding stress energy away through minor shakes.