Fracking, what will this do to the future of no only animals but people too

Current unconventional shale gas and oil fracking methods widely differ from traditional gas and oil fracking methods. Shale gas and oil fracking is a relatively new method which uses recently developed technologies. Shale fracking is much more problematic for a number of reasons. The process is much more likely to involve greater risks that degrade the environment and human health. The shale fracking process consumes and degrades 100's of times more gallons of fresh water and is hundreds of times more likely to contaminate or diminish aquifers, surface water and air quality.

Dr. Anthony Igraffea, a shale fracking industry expert who was involved in the development of the industry, says that the current state of the shale fracking industry is "FRNKENSTEINIAN"


If you have the time listen to one of his full lectures on the subject see;
Dr. Ingraffea, The Facts On Fracking
 
I just got home from the MT portion of the Bakken, This is near the Western edge.
There been a very active oil well going on in this spot for 5-6 years. Guess what? It's gone! The graveled road has been picked up, native gumbo replaced the gravel. A culvert removed and the coulee restored.
Not a sign of anything left where the tanks and pump were.
All replaced with the native soil Planted to native plants.

I was impressed. :thumbsup:
 
bigblue said:
How can anyone think for a minute that pumping anything into the ground thousands of feet down to force something else out of the ground is a good idea for the land or the people on it?

It's just crazy, nobody I mean nobody knows for sure if it is safe or not. So why do it? $$$$

All the money in the world is not worth having your grandkids or great grandkids walking around with a 3rd eye or not walking at all cause the ground water is toxic?

When they can show you what they are putting into the ground in writing and have proof that it is safe then go for it, but until then what the HELL are we thinking?:confused:
Click to expand...

So how is pumping water down below bedrock bad exactly? You state it's bad and you even throw in the obligatory scary stuff about third eyes but you seem ignorant of the actual process and effects.

So how about you tell us why pumping water (and some other ingredients) thousands of feet deep into the earth down will cause my great grand kids to have deformities?

And please, don't just give me the leftist, political BS. It's very tiresome.
 
See my above post for links to lectures and detailed information on the subject of shale fracking by Dr. Anthony Igraffea, an industry engineer who worked on developing the industry.

Shale is not solid rock, it has natural cracks and fissures in the layers. The fracking well casings are sealed with 1" thick cement. Cement is not flexible, it can crack and shift. The fluid and gas pressures thousands of feet down are in the tens of thousands of psi. There have been cases of gas, oil, and brine fracking fluids migrating up into upper level clean water aquifers from fracked wells. There are no long term histories or studies of shale fracking as the technology is relatively new and has been in use less than 20 years.

"Dr. Ingraffea examines the various types of environmental problems caused by fracking, stating that the inevitable leaking of a large percentage of gas wells will cause most of the ecological issues that arise."
 
Last edited:
"I believe that pedagogy, the "how" that one teaches, is as important as "what", or the content, one teaches".... A. Ingraffee. This comment is not surprising at Cornell.
The gentleman is a long time, well-considered research professor involved primarily in fracture mechanics.
Fracture mechanics being a study of fracture development in materials or welds or, to stretch his research into a far stab at relevancy today...in rock formations.
To say he is an expert in hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas reservoirs in the USA or around the world or has been "involved in the development of the hydraulic fracturing industry" :) is spin and false claims at their best.
My guess is there is a backstory to Tony and his comments re hydraulic fracturing issues.

Huntsem is an Internet surfer for any claims that have a tinge of truth about them re environmental issues...good for him but then more spinning, assumptions, dead-end alleys and leaps to conclusions are dealt to promote and further an agenda that actual facts seldom support. Normally, one simply ignores this spin that he places on several upland message boards but might as well at least mention that, as I noted previously, one can find "facts" on the Internet that support nearly every idea imaginable. If such claims as get made by the agendists cause a problem it is that they distract from where concern should be placed re any of the hydrocarbon plays now going so strong. The silliest of the claims can turn off folks much as the child crying "wolf" or moans of a falling sky.
We in this country need to remain focused on the downsides and upsides of every decision...industrial or other.
There are legitimate environmental concerns in these Plays...just beware of the false stuff spit about.

It is to no companies benefit to ever lose a fracturing treatment.
The cement used in cementing well casings is a designed mix for the depth and requirements of the job.
The deeper the depth, the more the jobs are engineered.
1" thick....one just has to laugh :D at the generalizing that goes on by the needy agenda folks these days.
But, fracture treatments can be lost....either through bad cement jobs or natural fractures.
Any damage to uphole aquifers though being a separate issue of a nearly hentooth level of concern...most gas in shallow water wells is from shallow gas, naturally-occurring shallow gas....the cow run for example, is a shallow zone in Pa. that has been around fouling water wells and coal mines since water wells and coal mines were first dug and before oil wells were shot with nitroglycerine. Plus, loss of any fracture treatment due to a bad cement job is evident prior to the job progressing by the pressure indications....seen it, realized it, recemented it and completed it with a positive result.
There really is a lot of bad info bandied about and covered over by the belief that the Internet is always correct if the info was printed.

Again, there are legitimate concerns here carrying a need for regulations/enforcement and a close eye; there will be industrial accidents and damage to the status quo that birdhunters and some residents will not like; there will be less experienced folks making bad decisions when big money is at hand and, there will be lies and exaggerations enough to fill several frac tanks made by both sides.
WE just have to be wise enough to see and sift through the BS from each and every side.
And be wise enough to realize that hydraulic fracturing is not the best, first place to set concern...it is just the most popular buzz word of the moment.
 
Last edited:
*



" Ingraffea was a member of the first group of Presidential Young Investigators named by the National Science Foundation in 1984. For his research achievements he has won the International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics "1994 Significant Paper Award" for one of five most significant papers in the category of Computational/Analytical Applications in the past 20 years, and he has twice won the National Research Council/U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics Award for Research in Rock Mechanics (1978, 1991).
Click to expand...

See Ingraffea's FULL BIO HERE

Also See;
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRACKING. By: Mooney, Chris, Scientific American, 00368733, Nov2011, Vol. 305, Issue 5

Shale Gas: How Often Do Fracked Wells Leak?


*
 
Last edited:
AtTheMurph said:
So how is pumping water down below bedrock bad exactly? You state it's bad and you even throw in the obligatory scary stuff about third eyes but you seem ignorant of the actual process and effects.

So how about you tell us why pumping water (and some other ingredients) thousands of feet deep into the earth down will cause my great grand kids to have deformities?

And please, don't just give me the leftist, political BS. It's very tiresome.
Click to expand...

so its just water nothing else only water? Are you sure about that, just pure water is all that gets pumped down there? I think maybe you need to look a little more into it. And nice call on the leftist, cause the right is so precise when in comes to science.LOL But you did list some other ingredients like those don't matter? What are those other ingredients, why don't they list them and how much? Suppose your fine with trade secrets being used why they can't list them. So enough of your BS
 
bigblue said:
so its just water nothing else only water? Are you sure about that, just pure water is all that gets pumped down there? I think maybe you need to look a little more into it. And nice call on the leftist, cause the right is so precise when in comes to science.LOL But you did list some other ingredients like those don't matter? What are those other ingredients, why don't they list them and how much? Suppose your fine with trade secrets being used why they can't list them. So enough of your BS
Click to expand...

I think the point he's making is that, whatever is in the fracking fluid, it's still going thousands of feet below ground. It's a complicated issue, but that can't affect the wildlife above ground which are drinking surface water rather than ground water. The complaints about fracking relate to ground water, not surface water. I agree that all the oilfield activity above ground probably bothers the grouse, particularly the sage grouse. Grouse don't respond well to activity near their leks, but pheasants seem pretty tolerant of human activity. In a perfect world, we'd have no oilfield activity around places we bird hunt, but unfortunately there are other important considerations besides wildlife. With the significant contributions that fracking and oilfield activity have made to employment, domestic oil reserves, and (probably) gas prices, I don't think there's a reasonable argument that oil companies should stop drilling and fracking just to protect wildlife.
 
dead pheasants forever said:
I think the point he's making is that, whatever is in the fracking fluid, it's still going thousands of feet below ground. It's a complicated issue, but that can't affect the wildlife above ground which are drinking surface water rather than ground water. The complaints about fracking relate to ground water, not surface water. I agree that all the oilfield activity above ground probably bothers the grouse, particularly the sage grouse. Grouse don't respond well to activity near their leks, but pheasants seem pretty tolerant of human activity. In a perfect world, we'd have no oilfield activity around places we bird hunt, but unfortunately there are other important considerations besides wildlife. With the significant contributions that fracking and oilfield activity have made to employment, domestic oil reserves, and (probably) gas prices, I don't think there's a reasonable argument that oil companies should stop drilling and fracking just to protect wildlife.
Click to expand...

How about protecting us! I sincerely doubt the claims of mining companies, oil companies, as to the pro's and con's of the health issue. All papers I read are somebody, either pro or con, skewing the data, and making broad claims about the side which pays them. I don't think I want to find out the hard way, that we despoiled all the ground water in 10 years, or find out my daughters have cancer because we did not accurately weigh the cost!
 
oldandnew said:
How about protecting us! I sincerely doubt the claims of mining companies, oil companies, as to the pro's and con's of the health issue. All papers I read are somebody, either pro or con, skewing the data, and making broad claims about the side which pays them. I don't think I want to find out the hard way, that we despoiled all the ground water in 10 years, or find out my daughters have cancer because we did not accurately weigh the cost!
Click to expand...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::cheers:
 
oldandnew said:
How about protecting us! I sincerely doubt the claims of mining companies, oil companies, as to the pro's and con's of the health issue. All papers I read are somebody, either pro or con, skewing the data, and making broad claims about the side which pays them. I don't think I want to find out the hard way, that we despoiled all the ground water in 10 years, or find out my daughters have cancer because we did not accurately weigh the cost!
Click to expand...

:cheers::10sign::thumbsup:
 
oldandnew said:
How about protecting us! I sincerely doubt the claims of mining companies, oil companies, as to the pro's and con's of the health issue. All papers I read are somebody, either pro or con, skewing the data, and making broad claims about the side which pays them. I don't think I want to find out the hard way, that we despoiled all the ground water in 10 years, or find out my daughters have cancer because we did not accurately weigh the cost!
Click to expand...

I hear you, but we can't get by without oil and gas. Even if you drive an electric car and have a house covered with solar panels, you're still using oil and gas every time you buy groceries, mail a package, or step on a plane. When you say don't drill here, you're effectively saying go drill in someone else's backyard. I don't think it's fair to accept the benefits of oil and gas but expect someone else to bear all the costs. Just my 2 cents.
 
1pheas4 said:
Amazing technology. I'm wondering how they drill the plugs out prior to letting the natural gas flow into the pipe:confused:

Nick
Click to expand...

They send a drill down and simply drill them out.

The concerns on ground water contamination I think are far overblown. The risks are the same as with any other drilling of oil or gas where the well passes through ground water layers.

I don't think there are many examples of the ground water in other oil rich regions being contaminated by the drilling process, perhaps I'm wrong. If so where are they?

What the green attacks on fracking seem to be is an attempt to drum up anti-petro fervor in people too ignorant to understand exactly what fracking is and how it works and are too lazy to try to figure it out.

Green really equals Red. It's the same people with the same answers. Funny how that works.
 
Fracking is here to stay. Amazing technology.
They use the same drill site for multiple wells going off in every direction, minimizing the impact on the land.
I have seen where wells dry up they reclaim the land, REAL WELL.

The people that are against Fracking and oil exploration are not out there. Communities are prospering. Locals are making 10 times (at least) the incomes prior to fracking. Land owners don 't have mineral right but they control the surface. I doubt if there are any ranchers that say "NO YOU CAN NOT CROSS MY LAND" Let the oil companies go in get the oil and after reclaim the land.

I wonder if some people believe the US and the World are ready to go on without oil? WOW:confused:

I do wish they would do something useful with all the NG that is being burned off.
Probably enough to heat ALL MN homes.
The whole area lights up at night and each site has a huge burn.
 
There are folks who take comfort and pride in fighting the good fight against any Big Fill-in-the-Blank on center stage at the moment.
Learning then falls way behind apples and oranges anecdotes or agendas which pluck and spin parsed out bits of information, bits supportable or not being irrelevant.
Reality, for them, essentially takes a siesta.

As mentioned before, those folks, more often than not, miss the important train while fixed on and reveling in the fight card and the Fight advertised on the platform's wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top