You Mother Frackers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

What’s your opinion on why small communities near fracking operations suffer higher rates of illness?

I’m not testing you or setting you up, I’m just curious. [/quote]

Hard to say, really. It could be anything from actual factors which create or exacerbate illness to attempted shakedowns of companies operating in the area. There are a lot of people who are very disappointed and feeling left out in the cold on royalties from gas extraction. Many of whom chant the mantra “I’m gonna get mine!”.

What ever it may be, this is the first I’ve heard of it and there are 2 fracking wells within a half mile of my house, and too many to count within 10 miles. All relatively densely populated areas.

[/quote]

I wonder if it’s also a case of most operations do their thing the right way, but the others give it a bad rap. I’m going to have to look into the regulatory teeth to see if violations end up with just a slap on the wrist or legitimate concerns for industry. [/quote]

My guess would be that most operations do try to stay in compliance. Fines for violation may look like a slap on the wrist especially in light of the sheer volume of money moving in that industry, but a class action lawsuit with some merit could set the industry back billions.

42

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[/quote]

43

What a clusterfuck of a post there ‘testy’…fix that shit will ya?
lol.

44

[quote]Karado wrote:
What a clusterfuck of a post there ‘testy’…fix that shit will ya?
lol.[/quote]

That’s weird, a few minutes ago it was fine.

45

Somebody’s messin’ with the forum’s code then…Hackers from Abu Dahbi?

46

[quote]Karado wrote:
Somebody’s messin’ with the forum’s code then…Hackers from Abu Dahbi?
[/quote]

Definitely… and probably our communist in chief is working with them by giving them intelligence and resources.

47

Well, the motivation to learn litmus test for those inclined will be the new investigative documentary FRACK NATION this Tuesday 1-22 at 8pm Central on AXSTV…now I just need to find where it is on Direct TV lol, but I’m sure that channel is available on other providers as well, should be very interesting.
Here’s that info link again.
http://fracknation.com/

48

the documentary is from Phelim McAleer, the dude that confronted Al Gore
and GASLAND director Josh Fox not long ago.

49

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And do you know how harmful or harmless each of them is?[/quote]

At what concentration? In what context? Water is deadly at high dosage. Go read up on “risk specific dose.”

And again, what happens a mile or more down gradient under billions of tons of rock… . .

But I repeat. And I forget liberals don’t understand science.[/quote]

I’ve already said, I don’t have an opinion one way or another because I don’t know enough about it.

My point is that your “it’s just water and a little anti-freeze” thing is not based in reality. Like I said, there are more than 700 additives listed.

By the way, the whole “water is toxic at high doses” thing is irrelevant every single time it comes up. It’s a snapple fact, not an argument.

Edit: at what doses are LGC-36 UC and MA-844W toxic to the human body? Any idea?[/quote]

Water is toxic at high doses is actually a very good argument. People complain about toxicity of everything all the time. The fact is simple: everything becomes toxic once a certain concentration is reached, even water. Talking about toxicity of additives without concentrations, LD 50 values,… is futile.
Simply stating that 700 additives are listed, as if it were in itself a bad thing, is a snapple fact.

50

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[/quote]

The Matrix is broken

51

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[/quote]

The Matrix is broken

52

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
It’s under-regulated. [/quote]

What did we ever do before big government had its stinking hands on every little thing that business does? Oh that’s right…we built the most successful, prosperous and powerful nation that has ever existed. But of course through government regulation that is now over!

[/quote]

You’re right, just think of all the poor kids who can no longer ride their mountain bikes on chat piles in Ottawa County, Oklahoma–because of a little toxin-induced mental retardation? God damn government.[/quote]

And just think of the economy crashing down all around us because government is too large, taxes too much and is slowly taking away incentive by handing people things for free.

I suggest there is a happy medium.

53

[quote]Xav wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And do you know how harmful or harmless each of them is?[/quote]

At what concentration? In what context? Water is deadly at high dosage. Go read up on “risk specific dose.”

And again, what happens a mile or more down gradient under billions of tons of rock… . .

But I repeat. And I forget liberals don’t understand science.[/quote]

I’ve already said, I don’t have an opinion one way or another because I don’t know enough about it.

My point is that your “it’s just water and a little anti-freeze” thing is not based in reality. Like I said, there are more than 700 additives listed.

By the way, the whole “water is toxic at high doses” thing is irrelevant every single time it comes up. It’s a snapple fact, not an argument.

Edit: at what doses are LGC-36 UC and MA-844W toxic to the human body? Any idea?[/quote]

Water is toxic at high doses is actually a very good argument. People complain about toxicity of everything all the time. The fact is simple: everything becomes toxic once a certain concentration is reached, even water. Talking about toxicity of additives without concentrations, LD 50 values,… is futile.
Simply stating that 700 additives are listed, as if it were in itself a bad thing, is a snapple fact.
[/quote]

Let’s go back and understand something:

A: Nothing dangerous about it, it’s just water and maybe some anti-freeze and a little acid. Like pool chemicals.

B: There are over 700 additives.

A: Water is toxic at high doses.

This is true and if we were going to go through the table of additives determining which ones are toxic at which doses, dose-dependent toxicity would be a relevant, though somewhat obvious, point.

But we’re not. And it wasn’t a logical next step in the discussion, which was a specific back-and-forth about a specific claim. It was a flailing “plan b.”

54

[quote]smh23 wrote:

your post misstated the chemical composition of so-called fracking fluid.

[/quote]

No, it didn’t. Reading is fundamental.

Look, I know you don’t understand chemistry or geology, so I am mocking you by omission, being both a petroleum engineer and a geologist myself.

Now, some random idiot may have “added” benzene (or whatever) to frack fluid, but I doubt it.

You add chemicals to eat away drilling fluids and maybe limestone. That’s going to be: detergents, acids, etc. Same crap you put in your dishwasher.

There is zero reason to put organics in frac fluids.

Benzene (and pretty much everything else I saw listed) appears naturally in non-potable ground water (as well as potable ground water, albeit at lower concentrations).

The water used for frac operations is generally crap non-potable water from a semi-shallow formation, typically very saline, most commonly from a water well drilled at the oil well site or at some relatively-close nexus to a group of wells your drill together.

Taking a typical Delaware or Permian basin well, the crap water will be at 300-500 feet, whereas potable water is 125-200 feet. The actual target (say the Wolfcamp/Sprayberry formations are 8500-11500 for fracing, just depending on where you are).

This crap water (with detergents and glycol of some sort if winter) is injected FARTHER DOWN from any drinking water — i.e., it is moved from 500 feet to 10,000 feet down.

If anything, the process makes contamination less likely, since natural pressures of the crap water decrease from this process.

55

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The produced water that sometimes has radioactive material and arsenic among other toxic heavy metals that sometimes has higher salinity by an order of magnitude than sea water from great depths? I agree, that’s an additional hazard.
[/quote]

Just so you know produced water is water that is produced along with oil. You inject it back into the formation (or a like formation) to keep pressures up, albeit at a distance from the wellbore itself to prevent watering out of your well.

[quote]
And just so we’re all clear on this, we are all referring to high pressure, high volume hydrolytic fracturing, as opposed to the kind of fracking that’s been going on for 100 years? Just getting that out there before someone comes in and tells us about how fracking has been going on forever because there is a nugget of truth there but it’s a very small nugget. [/quote]

Actually, it is the same. All that happens now is a bridge plug or packer or whatnot is put in (really two, one at the top and bottom of the target zone) and the pressure is concentrated in the the formation in question, instead of the entire length of the tubing.

You unscrew (or drill through depending on how you are doing it) the sets and move up the pipe, specific target by specific target.

Not only is less total pressure needed (because it is focused), but because you are not pressuring the upper portions of the wellbore (where you can have fresh water behind pipe), it is far less likely to cause a rupture.

In short, the sheer stupidity of the arguments is shocking.

++++++++++++++

As am aside, I got a kick out of Matt Damon complaining about “Burning Creek” burning due to gas coming to the surface.

Burning Creek has had that name for a couple hundred years.

Gee, I wonder how it got its name? Could it be normally-occurring natural gas seepage that was spotted and why the original drillers picked that spot to drill?

No! Next thing people will tell me that tar sands, balls, and seepages were noted in Genensis in areas of the now-middle east where there is oil production. Oh wait.

56

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

your post misstated the chemical composition of so-called fracking fluid.

[/quote]

No, it didn’t. Reading is fundamental.
[/quote]

Again:

“Frac fluid is generally water, perhaps with some acid and perhaps with some ethylene glycol (aka – antifreeze if it’s fucking cold outside so your lines don’t freeze). It’s not some mysterious substance.”

http://www.dec.ny.gov/...dsgeischap5.pdf [Pages 5-35 to 5-40]

I call that a misstatement.

[quote]

Look, I know you don’t understand chemistry or geology, so I am mocking you by omission, being both a petroleum engineer and a geologist myself.

Now, some random idiot may have “added” benzene (or whatever) to frack fluid, but I doubt it.

You add chemicals to eat away drilling fluids and maybe limestone. That’s going to be: detergents, acids, etc. Same crap you put in your dishwasher.

There is zero reason to put organics in frac fluids.

Benzene (and pretty much everything else I saw listed) appears naturally in non-potable ground water (as well as potable ground water, albeit at lower concentrations).

The water used for frac operations is generally crap non-potable water from a semi-shallow formation, typically very saline, most commonly from a water well drilled at the oil well site or at some relatively-close nexus to a group of wells your drill together.

Taking a typical Delaware or Permian basin well, the crap water will be at 300-500 feet, whereas potable water is 125-200 feet. The actual target (say the Wolfcamp/Sprayberry formations are 8500-11500 for fracing, just depending on where you are).

This crap water (with detergents and glycol of some sort if winter) is injected FARTHER DOWN from any drinking water — i.e., it is moved from 500 feet to 10,000 feet down.

If anything, the process makes contamination less likely, since natural pressures of the crap water decrease from this process.[/quote]

I am obviously not going to pretend to know nearly as much as you do on this subject, and did not intend to.

But I know that it is stupid to pretend that the the controversy is over, the science is in, the relevant observers and participants are in unanimous agreement: fracking is just fine and dandy for everybody involved.

That is a fantasy.

57

[quote]smh23 wrote:

But I know that it is stupid to pretend that the the controversy is over, the science is in, the relevant observers and participants are in unanimous agreement: fracking is just fine and dandy for everybody involved.

That is a fantasy.[/quote]

Sadly, the science is settled. The anti-domestic oil people are just throwing up nonsense.

But I agree that various interest are faking a controversy for their respective interest. Further, they are well-funded and well-connected to political and media machines.

58

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

But I know that it is stupid to pretend that the the controversy is over, the science is in, the relevant observers and participants are in unanimous agreement: fracking is just fine and dandy for everybody involved.

That is a fantasy.[/quote]

Sadly, the science is settled. The anti-domestic oil people are just throwing up nonsense.

But I agree that various interest are faking a controversy for their respective interest. Further, they are well-funded and well-connected to political and media machines.[/quote]

Fair enough. As I said in the beginning of this thread, I don’t know enough about fracking to really believe something one way or another, so I’m not arguing with anybody, especially somebody who’s involved in it and therefore knows infinitely more about it than I do.

59

On NPR this morning they were talking about a couple of companies who have developed markers to put in fracking solution so they can tell which well, if any, is polluting the water supply. The oil industry spokesperson was totally against it, but could only come up with the “not wanting to see over regulation and such” argument. He didn’t address why this is a bad idea at all. I’m in South Texas, working for a company very much involved with the oil and gas industry, but that made me a little dubious.

60

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

As am aside, I got a kick out of Matt Damon complaining about “Burning Creek” burning due to gas coming to the surface.

Burning Creek has had that name for a couple hundred years.

Gee, I wonder how it got its name? Could it be normally-occurring natural gas seepage that was spotted and why the original drillers picked that spot to drill?

No! Next thing people will tell me that tar sands, balls, and seepages were noted in Genensis in areas of the now-middle east where there is oil production. Oh wait.[/quote]

Very Basic. Same thing happens in the Gulf of Mexico with tar balls that wash up on the beaches along Texas and Louisiana. It is naturally occuring. Libtards do not understand this. Because it does not happen in their Rich Posh neighborhoods it must be the evil oil and gas companies making it happen.