No Fracking Way!

[Pheidippides]

Too bad we don't have anybody on CUF with expertise in this field to shed some light on this.

Yeah, too bad.

[landpoke]

So because ground water was contaminated in a region where fracing was taking place in close proximity to ground well water then we should ban it everywhere?

Fracing needs to be regulated, but it's clearly safe in areas where you are drilling 8,000 feet below the earth and 7,800 feet below any aquifers. Well, clearly safe if you follow appropriate regulation like sealing the well and disposing properly of chemicals and ground water.

The cement jobs are the key and closer oversight there would solve the problem. I don't have any stats to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum that the vast majority of the few problems that have occurred are due to a poor cement job.

[Pheidippides]

The cement jobs are the key and closer oversight there would solve the problem. I don't have any stats to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum that the vast majority of the few problems that have occurred are due to a poor cement job.

In fact, I dare say it's just about the only way. Fracing doesn't work if it can break through to the water table as a matter of physics.

[Green Monstah]

In fact, I dare say it's just about the only way. Fracing doesn't work if it can break through to the water table as a matter of physics.

See my link in the Energy thread. The frack jobs in question were far shallower than those in other parts of the country. I realize there are some idiots out there who give the entire industry a bad name, but I've been told by people with Ph.D.'s, who I respect immensely, that if done right, the risk to groundwater is basically 0%.

[old_gregg]

Burden of proof? Yes, anyone proposing to stop fracking because "we can live will less energy" should certainly bare the buren of making a prima facie case that the alleged danger to our nations supply of clean water exists.
Do you disagree?

you don't feel like the new york times article is sufficient to establish a prima facie case? or you think your "nuh uh" is enough to dismiss it?

[Green Monstah]

you don't feel like the new york times article is sufficient to establish a prima facie case? or you think your "nuh uh" is enough to dismiss it?

When you drill horizontally through an aquifer, yes, you will contaminate deep water wells. Whoever did this is an idiot (I'd like to see the well history to see who did what and when). But this in no way implicates fracking as a whole.

[DU Ute]

Robin, I hope you at least considered "Frack Off" and "Go Frack Yourself" for thread titles.

[Jacob]

you don't feel like the new york times article is sufficient to establish a prima facie case? or you think your "nuh uh" is enough to dismiss it?

Not at all. The article didn't even discuss at large contamination of our water supply.

[KillerDog]

I was particularly impressed by the part where the EPA said they dont know what chemicals are used in fracing but they suspect they have discovered trace chemicals in the water and they further suspect those chemicals are fracing chemicals and they further suspect they came from a frac stage. Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me.

[HauteCoug]

fracking just sounds dirty.

[Green Monstah]

fracking just sounds dirty.

You shold see what comes out of the hole. It is dirty.

[mUUser]

I like the map. I'm convinced.

Me too. I only want blue water.

[cowboy]

This is a predictable thread, and it reflects our national politics. On one side there are people who are against most any fossil fuel production (for a variety of reasons) and they will use any evidence to demonstrate fossil fuels and the technologies that produce them are dangerous and need to go away. On the other side are the folks like me who, also for a variety of reasons, are of the idea that the more we extract the better we are. These people dismiss most claims of environmental hazard as propaganda. Most people are somewhere in between, and the people at the poles are making every effort to pull them to their side.

There, I admitted that I'm taking a side, and I'm under no delusion that I'm objectively approaching this from somewhere in the middle. Now you can read the next part if you want.

This article is bullshit. The EPA and its crew have been desperate to find a link between fracing and some sort of danger ever since the improved technology made the Bakken the biggest find of our generation. They've tried to link it to everything from groundwater pollution to earthquakes (yeah, earthquakes) and this is all they can come up with? They might have found chemicals (the tests can't be replicated by the state DEQ), that might be in fracing fluid that might have gotten there by fracing? Would the NYT run a story about a man who might have gotten a call from a company that might want to hire him for a job that might be related to the Keystone XL crude-oil pipeline? Yet, despite even the Times admitting that this area is different from other drill areas, people at the pole will latch onto this article and make the wild conclusion that this is evidence that there is some sort of mass contamination of the nation's fresh groundwater supply from fracing. I believe the NYT expected this reaction, which is why they ran the story.

I admit that I'm not a fracing expert, but I've been around it enough to know that no oil company wants to introduce more water into their oil formation. For this reason, they take precautions to keep the fracing fluid in the target formation. Further, the amount of water used in a frac, though the gallons make it sound like a big number, is relatively small. The amount of water used to irrigate 640 acres of corn in North Dakota would be enough to frac 5,000 wells per year. Because the frac water represents a miniscule proportion of total groundwater any mixing of frac water with groundwater would likely have a negligible effect. Just because it can be measured doesn't mean it's dangerous.

Just my two cents in an effort to make this thread even more predictable.

And FYI, I know the people in this community of Wyoming and they don't need to worry. They don't drink anything that hasn't been brewed or distilled.

[wally]

I have a distaste for all of this environmental "combat science." I sometimes feel that our popular media is spoiling science. Maybe I'm wrong.

The traditional "honest scientist", you know the person who just wants to understand natural systems better regardless of the political, economical, etc. ramifications of his research, seems to have little voice in the media anymore.

[Green Monstah]

Interestingly, the EPA made similar accusations in Texas against a company called Range Resources. A hearing was convened to discuss the EPA's findings, and the EPA actually failed to show up. They rushed to judgment and ended up with egg on their face.

My livelihood depends on the production of hydrocarbons, so I can't pretend to be objective here. I am fully in favor of responsible, safe production of oil and gas via fracking, but unfortunately, both sides of the debate seem to rush to judgment and resort to propoganda to further their cause, which is sad.