Hydrofracking - are we nuts? (OT)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 161 - 180 of total 436 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 9, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
Well here in NY ,alot of baseline studies of groundwater,surface water,wells,methane well contamination .Stats have been taken,Before fracking.If NY is to allow fracking,it will only be in 5 counties.IMO the gas companies wont have the balls to come here,because we will be armed with info and the most lawyers.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 9, 2013 - 05:32pm PT
Bruce,i was waiting to hear from base myself. Fracking is hardly"methane neutral",wells have blow offs or pressure relief valves to let off pressure.This pressure ,released, is in the form of methane,amongst other chem vapors or solids.Methane does occur naturally,from swamps,caves,unnaturally from landfills and old wells.All this means,fracking just adds ,while we have no measure,a lot of methane to the atmosphere ,increasing greenhouse gases.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Another couple of unintended consequenses.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark

Perhaps this is what disturbs me the most:

every day drillers in North Dakota "burn off enough gas to heat half a million homes."

Willing to waste all that energy. what hogs.
Majid_S

Mountain climber
Bay Area , California
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:50pm PT
what if Arabs do not accept worthless dollar to sell you oil ?


you start digging in your own backyard

couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Next up, Fracknation. From this link: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/20/film-review-fracknation/

Film review: Fracknation
posted at 9:31 am on January 20, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Full disclosure: I’m a friend of filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, producers of the new documentary Fracknation. I’ve been looking forward to this effort for some time, interviewing Phelim and Ann during the last couple of years as they prepared for and produced the film. Outside of friendship — and Ann and Phelim are a truly lovely and delightful couple — I wanted to get the other side of the fracking dispute represented in the cinematic arena, especially after Gasland and now Promised Land.

And make no mistake — this documentary succeeds in rebutting Josh Fox, the producer/director/writer of the documentary Gasland that touched off much of the anti-fracking activism. Phelim steps through a number of Fox’s claims inside and outside of the documentary, systematically undermining each of them. He includes a clip of his in-person challenge to Fox, which Fox tried to suppress, and another with a state official that cozied up to Fox — whose lawyer hilariously demands the film of the interview immediately afterward. (It’s amazing how little some lawyers know about the First Amendment.) Instead of speaking with Hollywood actors and the UAE (which provided some funding for Promised Land), Phelim speaks with the farmers in the supposedly-blighted areas of Pennsylvania, New York, and the Delaware Rivery Valley, as well as experts on fracking, water science, and environmental agencies.

The best part, however, comes near the end. One couple in the area have been particularly effective activists, giving interviews, appearing in Gasland, and protesting about their contaminated water supply. The EPA even came to Dimock based on their complaints to test the water supply specifically in their wells, which they claimed were contaminated by the fracking that had taken place in the region. When Phelim asks to interview them for Fracknation and to get the results of the test, they get belligerent enough to call a policeman (who turns out to be one of the most reasonable of all the people in the film) as well as threaten to pull a gun on Phelim. Only through a FOIA request does Phelim find out why — the EPA didn’t find anything wrong with the water, and they were smart enough to tape the meeting in which they told the couple the results.

Fracknation delivers a powerful debunking of the scare campaign against fracking and domestic natural-gas production. But don’t take my word for it — here’s Variety on the impact of Fracknation:

Those nursing the suspicion that Hollywood politics are awash in knee-jerk liberalism may well have their cynicism validated by “FrackNation,” a counterargument to the outcry over the natural-gas retrieval process known as “fracking” recently explored in Gus Van Sant’s feature “Promised Land.” But the more thoughtful and politics-oriented auds targeted by this well-reasoned film from helmers Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney and Magdalena Segieda will find plenty to chew over, including the possibility that perhaps all is not as simple as it seems in the world of nonrenewable energy.

Irish journalist McAleer narrates and serves as host to this briskly paced, low-budget and mischievous pic, presented as a rebuttal to Josh Fox’s Oscar-nominated “Gasland,” a docu that has been instrumental in building political resistance to a process seen by different factions as a godsend and an antidote to Big Oil. Fox is clearly depicted as the villain in “FrackNation,” from a “Gasland” post-screening Q&A where Fox refuses to answer McAleer’s simple questions, to a scene at Los Angeles’ Hammer Museum where Fox literally flees the camera.

McAleer makes a good case against Fox’s movie. From the farmers of the Delaware River Basin, for whom fracking hysteria has meant a loss of crucial income, to experts like James Delingpole, who somehow makes a fairly reasoned case that the anti-fracking people are the tools of Russian President Vladimir Putin (for whom the natural-gas market provides political leverage), most of the voices entertained here make a good deal of sense. But the filmmakers might have done well to address the animosity so many Americans feel toward the energy business in general.

And what did the New York Times think? You’d probably guess … and you’d be wrong:

Narrated by Mr. McAleer, whose previous documentaries have also argued against environmental concerns, “FrackNation” is no tossed-off, pro-business pamphlet. Methodically researched and assembled (and financed by thousands of small donations from an online campaign), the film picks at Mr. Fox’s assertions and omissions with dogged persistence. Much of what it reveals is provocative, like a confrontation with Mr. Fox about the presence of methane in the water supply decades before fracking began.

What’s clear is that Mr. McAleer knows his way around the Freedom of Information Act and has done his legwork. Besides talking to carefully selected scientists and water experts, he visits pro-fracking residents of Dimock Township, Pa., who are annoyed that their community is being characterized as a toxic wasteland. And he’s not above taking a sentimental detour to Poland to commiserate with a pensioner who can’t pay her energy bills, or reveling in the odd gotcha moment, like accusing a public official of “inappropriate ties” to Mr. Fox.

More than anything, “FrackNation” underscores the sheer complexity of a process that offers a financial lifeline to struggling farmers. Whether it also brings death to their water supply is something we won’t find out by listening to only half of the debate.

Fracknation will air on Tuesday evening on Mark Cuban’s AXs cable television channel at 9 pm ET. It’s a brilliant effort by Phelim and Ann, and it’s appropriate for all ages. The only violence in the film comes, unsurprisingly, from people who don’t want to have Phelim asking inconvenient questions.

I find it of interest that the filmaker specifically limited the size of his individual donations which were requested via Kickstarter.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 21, 2013 - 04:52pm PT
Well that should clear it all up.Fracking is actually good for the environment.Seems as all the greenwashing has failed,wtf,go rogue.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 21, 2013 - 05:19pm PT
Couchmaster,

Surely you've hung around ST long enough not to expect facts to interfere with peoples' feelings on environmental issues, particularly after Hollywood told us what to believe.

John
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:34am PT
So you are to believe an "online" funded movie.It is amazing that safe drinking water has been turned into a political issue.
Debra Winger, an actor, helped fund gasland,an individual,not hollywood.Please give me a reason as to why Josh Fox would lie and fracknation,truthland,would not.
I live here,western new york,they[big oil/gas] are going to push fracking right through,our politicians are bought and paid for.There are presently reports of only 2 methane contaminated wells in our area.We shall see.
Dimrock ,Pa,the wells contaminated there were not caused by fracking,instead,by operators spilling frac fluids into a creek there.Cleverly said as "not caused by fracking".
This story is amazing,corporations politically mobilizing a campaign for drilling thousands of wells in the name of energy independence,all the while fully knowledgeable of the consequences,with there real intentions of exporting to the highest bidder.The deamonizing of individuals against this ,whether they made a movie ,or not,is just truly so "republican" of you and yours.Check your stock prices!














'
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
So you are to believe an "online" funded movie.It is amazing that safe drinking water has been turned into a political issue.
Debra Winger, an actor, helped fund gasland,an individual,not hollywood.Please give me a reason as to why Josh Fox would lie and fracknation,truthland,would not.
I live here,western new york,they[big oil/gas] are going to push fracking right through,our politicians are bought and paid for.There are presently reports of only 2 methane contaminated wells in our area.We shall see.
Dimrock ,Pa,the wells contaminated there were not caused by fracking,instead,by operators spilling frac fluids into a creek there.Cleverly said as "not caused by fracking".
This story is amazing,corporations politically mobilizing a campaign for drilling thousands of wells in the name of energy independence,all the while fully knowledgeable of the consequences,with there real intentions of exporting to the highest bidder.The deamonizing of individuals against this ,whether they made a movie ,or not,is just truly so "republican" of you and yours.Check your stock prices!

Opps, sorry, "demonizing" individuals, don't see where I did that, posted a review of a movie...can you copy past the specific part where I demonized you? It's true that I must have just posted an unpolitically correct thing. Thanks for correcting me. As John notes above, additional facts are not needed or worthy of debate, Hollywood has already come out with their "truth".

The truth, Mr Beer, in the real world, is that every type of energy has environmental consequences that heads towards or are horrible. We pick and chose our poison, but until you stop YOUR energy consumption, you're just another hypocrite. I will say that Dr Steven Chu has been a welcome addition to the debate and implementations of policy, sad to see him leaving. May his replacement be as capable.

Of course, curiously, fracking wasn't shut down or even slowed down by him and his hires. Clearly he didn't consult you about it or perhaps he would have. But all he had was a damned fine brain, a Doctorate, extensive work in physics, he was the Director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he led the lab in pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technologies. He also taught at the University of California as a Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology. Previously, he held positions at Stanford University and AT&T Bell Laboratories.

His research in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics includes tests of fundamental theories in physics, the development of methods to laser cool and trap atoms, atom interferometry, and the study of polymers and biological systems at the single molecule level. While at Stanford, he helped start Bio-X, a multi-disciplinary initiative that brings together the physical and biological sciences with engineering and medicine.

The dude is the holder of 10 patents, and has published ~250 scientific and technical papers. He remains active with his research group and has recently published work on general relativity, single molecule biology, biophysics and biomedicine, and on scientific challenges and opportunities in clean energy. Over 30 alumni of his research group have gone on to become distinguished professors and have been recognized by dozens of prizes and awards.

Dr. Chu is a member of numerous honorific societies including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Academia Sinica, the Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology, and is an honorary member of the Institute of Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and a Lifetime Member of the Optical Society of America. He received an A.B. degree in mathematics, a B.S. degree in physics from the University of Rochester, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, as well as 23 honorary degrees. and in fact had recieved the NobelFRIKKANPrize for Physics work. BUT HE WAS TOO STUPID TO CONSULT YOU ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE FRACKING IS SO FRACKING WILL JUST CONTINUE UNABATED. Obviously, in re-reading your post, I can see that YOU and Debra Winger know more than him based on a Hollywood movie.

Stay warm. Clean gas. Or we can stay with "clean" coal like you are suggesting. The US currently gets 50% of it's energy from CLEAN Coal. Maybe you can look into coal as a fuel source and the issues associated with it. Whatevaaaahhh works.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:05pm PT
When i said demonizing, i was talking about the gas industry demonizing Josh Fox.I said nothing of you,most of what i said was directed at JE.Hypocrite,well thanks ,i run biodiesel in 2 cars,burn wood for heat ,off my property only ,and have two solar panels connected to the grid.Have not paid for electric in 10 years.Look up greeneck.
It is like i said,safe drinking water is now a political issue.You and your fellow republicans should be proud you stand with big oil/gas.
And sorry i have not seen fracknation,so i cannot comment on Dr Chu.The one thing i can comment on is ,you CAN get off of fossil fuels,and we can subsidize alternatives.Whether you or anybody likes it or not,it is the way FORWARD. I will repeat gasland is not a hollywood movie.


by the way ,i dont think they are going to frack anywhere near pdx.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 24, 2013 - 12:47am PT
Ahh. It is beyond discussion from my end. It isn't that technical if you have been around wells for ages, but it is impossible to keep up with the information, both real and exaggerated, if you are a normal person. Who are you gonna believe? An actor or some slick oil company commercial?

Frack jobs on these horizontals use so much water and sand that it is just a huge industrial 24 hour per day process for anywhere from a few days to weeks. It takes so many trucks that it tears up roads and pisses off the residents. If you look at a place like the Arkoma Basin, where most of the drilling is done, it has settled down.

As far as methane in groundwater, when I was at Chesapeake, they had been doing pre-drilling sampling of all water wells around their pads. If there weren't any wells, they drilled them. Water wells are really shallow and cheap. They also had a division in geosciences that did nothing but study the natural methane that exists in some places of the Appalachian Basin.

Like I have always said, the mess exists moving that stuff around the surface. In the past year everyone has started using a company who can recycle the flow back load water and remove the solids and use it over and over. This saves money because fresh water is expensive, and it also relieves the strain on local water supplies.

There are so many places in oil and gas exploration that are being ignored because of the frac hysteria. In that respect it makes me a little sad.

I'm fracking a well next week. It will be a much smaller one because we aren't in a shale. Conventional reservoirs use vastly smaller fracs. I can sample the flow back water in gallon jugs. Anyone can go out to a location and do that on the sly. It isn't like they have armed guards out there.

You will find a lot of those nasty chemicals in your gas tank. I've never heard of them being used in a freshwater frac.

Right now, with gas prices in the gutter, drilling has slowed to a crawl in the shale gas plays. Everyone is drilling for oil. The joke is if you hit a gas well you will be fired.

It is just so hard for people to understand simple concepts. I watched the Macondo blowout play out on the big news networks, all with their own experts from academia. None of them could get it right. I could sit down with two beers, a piece of paper and a pencil and show you how BP negligently tried to cut a tiny corner. Everyone I knew knew exactly how that well blew out within a week as the info came out. BP was never admired, and now they are pretty much despised.

The problem with the exploration end of things is that the only people who are knowledgable about the technology work in the industry. College professors are usually not up to snuff. They don't let you go on TV and explain how the Macondo blowout happened. They get some expert professor on there and they get it all wrong.

We are drilling almost nothing but horizontal stage fracked wells in Oklahoma and Texas right now. We have really good regulatory agencies with almost 100 years of experience. Simple rules that are easy and not expensive to follow.

I'll say it for the thousandth time. An American uses something like thirty times more resources than your typical third world citizen. So when you talk about our 0.9% population growth, the effect is much higher. We are a little country, 5% of the world's population, and use 25% of the world's oil.

The whole shitty mess is going to be a nightmare for our grandkids, and it won't be fracking. People need to stop screwing and stop driving big cars and stop buying one car per person and stop the crazy train we are on as a species.

I see it in a geologic time sense. This period will have a groovy fossil record, a reasonably large extinction event, a big climate event, and the rise of some other species to take over our mess.

I'll just say this: I work with smart people who care about the planet as much as anyone, and we all shake our heads that the public seized on frack jobs to blow a fuse on. Meanwhile the real problems get pushed aside. We just shake our heads.

New York is doing it right. Anyone with a brain knows the quality of that watershed.

Sorry. I just don't feel like talking science over and over and over. Just stop using the stuff.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 24, 2013 - 09:42am PT
Well i can totally agree with you base.I do not care to argue the thing to death either,and i have mentioned on other threads the same,who are you going to believe?

I will however preach/rally/support all alternatives,and their subsidizing ,support of our government.It is forward thinking,leading the transition off fossil fuels.

As for consumption,i do not believe the average american wants to work/sacrifice to become carbon neutral[or near it].I am talking with a contractor right now about the final piece in my own puzzle of renewables,geo thermal heat.It is fascinating.

I really feel with all of this that i have been cornered into defending my turf.Local government has been bought,farmers around here do not want fracking.They want windmills.Yet ,fracking, will sail right through,so you could see the dismay of mine and plenty of others here.

Hope you are getting that boat out soon!
tallguy

Trad climber
eastside
Jan 24, 2013 - 10:00am PT
Base,

Thoughts on the biomass carbon vs. fossil carbon distinction question I asked on the last page? Still curious about that..
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Jan 24, 2013 - 12:22pm PT
always suspicious when the accusers are reluctant to answer straight questions:

http://fracknation.com/


also suspicious of cries of environmental disaster ala the alaskan pipeline, exxon valdez, gulf oil spill, etc.

not saying we shouldn't be careful, but hysteria is not convincing


wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 24, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
well said bruce
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 24, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
wilbeer,

You state the following: "I really feel with all of this that i have been cornered into defending my turf.Local government has been bought,farmers around here do not want fracking.They want windmills.Yet ,fracking, will sail right through,so you could see the dismay of mine and plenty of others here."

I agree that local sentiments matter. In my neck of the woods, those who burn wood to heat their homes are villains this time of year, because the pollution from the particulate matter constitutes a much greater health hazard than the pollution from electricity generation or methane combustion. Your locality is apparently different.

And windmills here are now getting a bad rap because the local environmental community says they cause widespread destruction of migratory birds. As BASE104 says (or would say), all energy remains imperfect.

Your statement about farmers selling out confuses me. If they don't want fracking, but they're selling out, what's going on? Are the energy companies taking their mineral rights by eminent domain, or do these involve private, voluntary transactions? I don't want to work, either, but I gladly trade my time for money. Does that mean I'm being treated unfairly?

Finally, you ask who I would believe. I believe people in the industry, such as BASE104, on technical issues, because they are the ones with first-hand knowledge of what actually goes on in the field. I am particularly skeptical of Hollywood, because it is in the business of creating fantasy, and of the conventional, unspecialized media, because they are ignorant and subject to group think. Also, the conventional media seems to be more and more enamored of "advocacy journalism," or, as we used to call it, propaganda. When advocacy groups on either side of the fracking issue provide arguments, I examine their data and explanations and make my own decisions. I don't choose what to believe before hearing the evidence.

John

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 24, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
John,firstly,burning firewood is one of the cleaner ways to heat.Yes ,the particulate goes in to the atmosphere,there it combines with a variety of compounds and settles out through gravity,in effect cleaning our atmos phere.The same thing is said of forrest fires.As a geology prof once said"a solution to pollution is dilution".Not only does firewood do that ,it is carbon neutral,burning methane is not.

Secondly,windfarms are big here,and only getting bigger,farmers make more on their leases and less physical land is used employing mills=more crop yield.There are less[other than those you mentioned]possibly bad repercussions to their crops/livestock.Most farms around here grow vegtables for Birds Eye,a leading food company,they do not want to risk losing those contracts if things were to turn south with fracking.I can understand why farmers downstate[delaware river valley] want fracking,because the DOA has been buying them out and relocating them for decades.The farming sucks because of poor water/soil conservation practices.

And finally,Josh Fox,a resident of ny,grew up in pa.[as did i]From what i know,he made a documentary,had trouble getting distribution,accepted money from an actress,amongst others[yes liberals],to get the thing distributed.It was not made by hollywood.You can read into that whatever you want.The premise of the film was to show exactly what Base has said,what a huge industrialization fracking is.
What kills me is that all they[gas industry] have debunked is that the guys tap water does not light up.They have not even tried to say anything about what the rest of the documentary states,i.e.condensate pollution,surface and wastewater disposal,land use,misuse,etc.

Now if this were in the name of energy independence,maybe i could get behind it.But in light of recent findings that the gas companies want less restrictions, so they can export gas to countries that will pay more than us,i and many round here are more than against it.Especially with the things that COULD happen to OUR environment. Terence
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 24, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/drilling/violations/ And one other thing,all this just 70 miles south of me, in PA.Just sw of elmira,ny,three rivers start,the alleghany,which goes to the ohio,the genesee which goes to the st.lauwrence and the susquehana which goes to the chesapeake bay




That is what ive been talking about.I have been to some of these sites,these guys could not organize a rockfight,but we should trust them.3025 violations,and the PA DEP are way understaffed to try and keep up.
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 24, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
I agree on the one side is hysteria....and the other profits.

There are always solutions. But you are not going to get them from the ones profiting and you wont get reasonable ones from the hysterics.

I have been cleaning up the worst stuff in the USA for over two decades now, dealing with the results that the profiteers left behind and trying to find reasonable solutions that the hysterical people end up disagreeing with.

In every single clean up I have been on it would have ALWAYS been cheaper to not pollute in the first place. Allowing Frackers to inject "proprietary" chemicals into the ground is stupid. It may not "fix" the overall problem that Base refers to, but I dont see anyone on this thread willing to say, "No, I am not climbing this weekend to save gas so I can save the environment". Thats because it is not a real solution in this day and age. Which is not to say that we do nothing. We absolutely need to try and conserve. But at the end of the day we have to fix the problems that we can fix and not throw our hands up.

There needs to be tighter controls on fracking in terms of pollution pprevention. Pay now, or pay a LOT more later.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Jan 24, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
John,firstly,burning firewood is one of the cleaner ways to heat.Yes ,the particulate goes in to the atmosphere

and your lungs and then you die....its one of the leading causes of death in the undeveloped world where the use it and dung exclusively for cooking and eating

KNow what happens when they get some cashola...they buy a propane stove
Messages 161 - 180 of total 436 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta