rEvolutionist wrote:Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:I probably wouldn't, Lak. That boat has already sailed, and there's probably only rough seas ahead. Opposition to fracking is growing massively, and the politicians, quite strangely, are starting to actually take notice, in some instances. Studies showing problems with fracking are growing as well. I'd say it's too risky a proposition to invest in, given the massive gains have already been made.
What "studies?" Authored by whom, exactly? NRDC perhaps?
The EPA just finished a decade long study of the issue and found only ONE verified incidence of fracking fluids contaminating a water table in the entire US.
As I said (REPEATEDLY), you won't find studies confirming much at all with existing wells and operations.
Horseshit.
That's because no baseline data was taken, thanks to shonky environmental laws at the time.
Horseshit again. No "baseline study" is needed to detect fracking fluid in previously tested and drinkable water. The stuff is either there or it isn't. Literally all of the complaints about tainted water, including water that "burns" coming out of some well-owner's tap turns out to be natural gas in the water, which happens all the time even without drilling when geological movement opens up cracks between the high pressure gas layers and the water zones. All of the studies of such complaints have failed to produce any credible evidence that fracking was the cause. You see, fracking takes place thousands of feet below surface water tables, often more than a mile below, and the process only fractures the strata at the bottom of the bore-hole, which is completely cased in steel pipe and grouted with cement. This fracturing doesn't extend very far at all from the actual bore hole, and certainly not thousands of feet upwards.
Now, it is possible for a casing to be improperly grouted, which is what happened with the Gulf oil spill. That was caused by pockets of underground methane hydrate outside the casing that melted, leaving voids that were not sealed by cement due to improper cementing procedures. So leakage of natural gas from the gas-bearing strata CAN follow up an improperly grouted casing and indeed it can then flow into looser water-bearing formations near the surface. But that is not the ONLY way such leakage enters water tables. Most of the time it's natural processes like earth movements at fault.
Well drilling records keep track of pressures in the bore and in the casing after boring is finished and engineers can easily detect blowouts and deal with the consequences, which includes providing clean water supplies to surface users who are affected by gas leaking into their water wells. Oil and Gas commissions almost always require the gas producer to compensate surface owners for such damage when it can be verified that the leak was caused by the drilling activity.
But natural gas leakage and contamination have nothing to do with fracking per se. In only one instance has actual fracking fluid been detected by chemical testing in a water supply. Again, no "baseline" data is needed to detect these chemicals, but there is a lot of baseline data that IS available in drilling logs, including records of drilling through aquifers and which may indeed include sampling of the water as the bore is drilled. Many bore holes are abandoned, sealed and capped if they hit water precisely to avoid potential contamination, and a new bore is drilled elsewhere to avoid the aquifer.
None of this is anything new. The practices and regulations have been in place for decades and they work very well to protect water sources.
But the presence of natural gas in an aquifer is NOT scientifically validated proof that gas drilling caused the leak. Substantial research is needed to prove this, and one of the methods includes injecting dyes and radioactive tracers into the gas strata to see if they turn up in the aquifer. It's well-seasoned technology and in all the decades it's been going on, as I've said again and again, the EPA has verified only ONE incident where fracking fluid was driven into an aquifer.
The problem is not fracking, it's drilling for and producing gas and oil, which has inherent risks like blowouts and leaks that may potentially affect water supplies. But the need for energy must be balanced against the potential harm and the costs of mitigating any leaks must also be considered. If five people living in a rural area have to be provided with potable water or filtration systems paid for by the producer, the benefits to be gained by accessing the oil and gas make it worth doing. As long as those actually impacted by drilling are compensated and are provided with alternate water sources, the driller's right to access and exploit HIS property (the oil and gas) is protected by the law. He cannot be divested of his property without just compensation, and those who hold surface rights in split-estates hold those rights in full knowledge that the owner of the mineral rights may at any time come in and use reasonable industry standards to extract his minerals, even if it has a detrimental effect on the surface owners.
This came up in coal mining long ago, where the Supreme Court ruled that coal companies could not be sued for surface subsidence and damage to homes above so long as they mined according to standard best practices, and that the companies have no "duty of surface support" and may not be compelled to leave more coal as supporting pillars to benefit the surface owner, who holds his estate subject to the right of the mineral owner to extract that mineral.
If you don't want a coal mine or gas well under your house, then don't buy property on a split estate or make sure you purchase the mineral rights yourself...like my family did, precisely to prevent just that from happening.
You also will struggle to prove it now, as the chemicals they use in fracking are regarded as proprietary secrets and don't have to be reported to the environmental agencies (thanks to law makers being bought off by the gas industry).
The law has recently been changed in many states, including Colorado, to require companies to disclose the chemicals (but not the precise proportions) they use in fracking. However, it's not really that difficult to determine if there are foreign chemicals in previously potable water supplies that appeared shortly after fracking takes place in the area.
Anyway, it might surprise you to know that there is a world outside the US.
Not my problem.
There are increasing numbers of scientific studies in Australia that are showing problems.
Such as.....???
I'd imagine it is the same in the UK. But we all know that you think there's nothing outside the US, so you just keep living under that rock, Seth.
Hey, it's your country, you can do whatever the fuck you want, including destroying your energy production so that you end up living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground for roots with a sharp stick. I really don't give a damn what YOU do down under, I'm merely demonstrating that you're full of shit insofar as the United States is concerned.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
I'd check your own water for contamination, man. Something is going wrong at your end of the internet. Regarding the point about fracking chemicals and contamination, that's one issue, and the other issue that you even allude to is methane in the water. YET AGAIN I have to make the point that no one can confirm anything without baseline studies. How fucking hard is this to grok?!? How the fuck can you say that the methane has always been in their water when THERE AREN'T ANY PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THEIR WATER?!? 
