# Turning Natural Gas Into Water



## Mr. H. (Mar 27, 2012)

Good article. Too bad this is the very economic success story that Obama and the EPA wish to crush.


----------



## rdean (Mar 29, 2012)

It takes science to get oil out of shale.

Republicans believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.

Can't they just "pray" the oil out of the shale?


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 29, 2012)

Give it a rest. Did you read the link?


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2012)

People are quite reasonably concerned about the destruction of their watertables.

NIMBY isn't anything more than people defending their* property rights.*

As to the science and technical issues?

I have no opinion and leave those issues to the experts to battle out


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2012)

Real simple problem here. We can live without the natural gas. We cannot live without the water. And if they drill and frack, and 10 years down the road, the aquifers are polluted, who pays? Given past experiance, it will be the taxpayer. And the homeowner whose water supply is no longer usable.

We need a solid backup structure, and accountability for this activity.


----------



## RGR (Mar 29, 2012)

editec said:


> People are quite reasonably concerned about the destruction of their watertables.



Sure. So they should stop worrying about hydraulic fracturing, considering the millions of times destruction of the water table has NOT happened.



			
				editec said:
			
		

> NIMBY isn't anything more than people defending their* property rights.*



Isn't that something any normal person would consider the cost/benefit ratio of prior to signing a lease allowing the development of their mineral rights, from which they profit handsomely?


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 30, 2012)

Anyone who looks to entertainers for political or any real advies is pretty stupit.
They are only good for entertainment.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 30, 2012)

Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy


----------



## RGR (Mar 31, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy



Are the depths of your belief so strong that you don't use these fossil fuels, or are you like so many others who still drive a car, heat your house or the water in it, power your house and your computer, with energy from fossil fuels while complaining about them?


----------



## RGR (Mar 31, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> The Joint Landowners Coalition of New York (JLCNY) announces appeals of the two flawed court decisions on natural gas bans in New York State:
> 
> Some Welcome News from the JLCNY | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Why does your article claim that property rights are being revoked in New York? And how do you know that the court decisions are flawed? Certainly no evidence was provided in the link you reference.


----------



## TShepstone (Mar 31, 2012)

Couldn't agree more with that last coment.  Renewables are outstanding but are stuck at 2% and will be for decades to come because they require 100X the subsidies of gas, are intermittent and only produce about 25% of their capacity.  They are a great supplement but cannot replace fossil fuels.  Let's get real here!


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 31, 2012)

RGR said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy
> ...



I see so because dumbasses like you keep us on fossil fuels and auto transportation It means I'm a hypocrite. Come back when you've got something that is not retarded to say IE never


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 31, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Couldn't agree more with that last coment.  Renewables are outstanding but are stuck at 2% and will be for decades to come because they require 100X the subsidies of gas, are intermittent and only produce about 25% of their capacity.  They are a great supplement but cannot replace fossil fuels.  Let's get real here!



Yes you really do need to "get real"
Solar power alone could power almost the whole of America 
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation

That doesn't even include, wage, hydro, wind, biofueles/biomass, or geothermal


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 1, 2012)

You are the johnusa of the Energy Forum.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 2, 2012)

_Unfortunately, logic is often trumped by politics..._

We've been seeing a lot of that lately.

This is a good article, but not something that would cause me to totally write off alternatives/renewables. I do believe in supporting emerging energy technologies, but not at the direct expense of hydrocarbons as Obama is want to do.


----------



## Douger (Apr 2, 2012)

Marine energy mission to Chile | Events | Scottish Development International
Good site here.
Tidal Energy | Energy Business News


----------



## Douger (Apr 2, 2012)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=tidal-energy-project-makes-2012-03-26


----------



## RGR (Apr 3, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Scott Cline offers Part III in his "Mother of All Spin" series critiquing Deborah Rogers:
> 
> Gimmickry; Thy Name Be Rogers, Not Natural Gas | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Why are you pimping the Marcellus so hard?


----------



## RGR (Apr 3, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Nicole and Rachael introduce a terrific new video on the Women of the Marcellus:
> 
> Marcellus Shale: Helping Keep Families Together | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Why are you pimping the Marcellus so hard?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 3, 2012)

Hey maybe I will support that shale thing too.  After all anything that keeps the yankees up there can't be all bad.


----------



## RGR (Apr 3, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Scott Cline addresses more of Deborah Rogers' spin:
> 
> Where Is That Natural Gas Treadmill? | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Why are you pimping the Marcellus so hard?


----------



## RGR (Apr 3, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Dr. Scott Cline has been attending Deborah Rogers' presentations on her tour of upstate New York.  He has assembled a complete evaluation of her remarks, which will be appear in a multi-part series entitled "Mother of All Spin" on the EID-Marcellus blog.  Check out Part I of the series here (Part II will appear tomorrow, etc.):
> 
> Natural Gas Critic Refuses to See What's Before Her Eyes | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative
> 
> Great stuff!



What part of a run of the mill shale gas development plan do you think is "great stuff"? And why?

The Marcellus a reasonable amount of natural gas. Cool. I'll take a Norphlet well any day of the week over any 50 Marcellus wells. Do you even understand why, or are you pimping indiscriminately?


----------



## RGR (Apr 3, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Couldn't agree more with that last coment.  Renewables are outstanding but are stuck at 2% and will be for decades to come because they require 100X the subsidies of gas, are intermittent and only produce about 25% of their capacity.  They are a great supplement but cannot replace fossil fuels.  Let's get real here!



Some of us are. Which is why we use solar panels, buy into windmill power, drive EVs, bicycle when we can, and prefer natural gas fired power to, say, coal? Or we like nukes over anything fossil fuelish.

Why your fascination with a relatively small source of natural gas like the Marcellus? Jobs for friends? You are from Pennsylvania perhaps? Leasing mineral rights? What?


----------



## Mr.Green (Apr 3, 2012)

Excellent article.  I'm glad Republicans have the right solution to the gas situation.  More offshore drilling, drilling shale deposits in the rockies, and building the Alaska naturL gas pipeline.  I'm not opposed to any kind of alternative energy source, but they're simply not practical enough, and wont be for ages.  Liberals need to realize the only way to lower gas prices is DRILL BABY DRILL!


----------



## RGR (Apr 4, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Scott Cline ties it all together with Part IV in his "Mother of All Spin" series on Deborah Rogers:
> 
> Deborah Rogers: Mother of All Natural Gas Spin | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



and you keep harping on the Marcellus...why?


----------



## RGR (Apr 4, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> The natural gas industry is doing great things to improve the lives of young Pennsylvanians:
> 
> 20+Ton Textbook Gifted to Lackawanna College by Natural Gas Industry | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Yup. They drilled up so much natural gas that the price crashed and the rigs are now moving to Ohio. Good job Pennsylvania!


----------



## RGR (Apr 4, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> That Franklin Forks water well problem looks a lot more like a flooding and mechanical issue than a natural gas one.
> 
> Franklin Forks Facts | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Do you actually KNOW anything about this topic, or just pimp the blogs of others?


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 4, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> The natural gas industry is doing great things to improve the lives of young Pennsylvanians:
> 
> 20+Ton Textbook Gifted to Lackawanna College by Natural Gas Industry | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



I was going to say it wasn't for lack a wanna but...

Hey RGR- what's so special about Ohio? 

Liquid hydrocarbs? Shirley not more nat gas.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> The natural gas industry is doing great things to improve the lives of young Pennsylvanians:
> 
> 20+Ton Textbook Gifted to Lackawanna College by Natural Gas Industry | Energy In Depth &#8211; Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Wrong.


_*
They're doing great things to ensure they have an educated workforce.
*_

You are confusing the virtue of long range foresight with the virtue of charitable giving.


Don't get me wrong. I think its great when a company has good long range planning skills and as a result, others benefit

If I'm a student that gets to learn with this thing, when I graduate, I'm thinking maybe I'd like to work for Exterran, the company that donated it. Exterran then gets more applicants for their job openings and can hence pick the best from a larger pool of applicants and the end result is higher PROFIT.


----------



## waltky (Apr 5, 2012)

Obama needs to open up some more oil leases...

*Number of New Oil Wells and New Leases Have Decreased Under Obama, Data from BLM Show*
_April 5, 2012  Since President Obama took office, both the number of new drilling operations started on federal lands and the number of new leases for oil operations on federal lands has decreased, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) data show._


> In fiscal year 2008, the last official year of the President George W. Bushs administration, 5,044 new oil wells were started, meaning that actual drilling began, which is what oil firms refer to as spudding in or to spud a well bore.  In FY 2009, however, in Obamas first year as president, there were 3,267 wells spudded, a decline of 1,777.  Fiscal year 2008 was from October 2007 through September 2008; fiscal year 2009 was from October 2008 through September 2009. President Bushs last year in office ended on Jan. 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated.
> 
> In addition, the Obama administration spudded 3,166 new wells in fiscal year 2010 and 3,260 in FY 2011, according to the Bureau of Land Management. Thats still less than the number of wells spudded, per year, under Bush in 2008, as well as the number in 2007  5,343 wells  and in 2006  4,708 wells.  The number of new oil drilling leases also declined under Obama, according to the Bureau of Land Management.  In FY 2008, there were 2,416 leases issued for operations on federal lands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 6, 2012)

This story showed up on the RIGZONE website at least a week ago.
You should subscribe.

You should also participate in all these threads you're creating. 

What's your view on this article?


----------



## Douger (Apr 6, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> How many times does it take for everyone to realize the Dimock water is safe and uncontaminated by natural gas development?
> 
> More Data from Dimock: EPA Confirms Water is Safe (Again) | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative


These are the same cocksuckers that fluoridate your water SHEEPstoned.


----------



## RGR (Apr 6, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> How many times does it take for everyone to realize the Dimock water is safe and uncontaminated by natural gas development?
> 
> More Data from Dimock: EPA Confirms Water is Safe (Again) | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



How many more times are you going to pimp the Marcellus?


----------



## RGR (Apr 6, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> This story showed up on the RIGZONE website at least a week ago.
> You should subscribe.
> 
> You should also participate in all these threads you're creating.
> ...



Not only that, but I thought he/she already posted something very similar, if not the same thing?


----------



## RGR (Apr 6, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Many people do not realize this but natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing do not deplete water supplies:
> 
> Turning Natural Gas Into Water | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Some people don't realize that carpet bombing in links without discussing them, or apparently even reading them, is considered rude.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 6, 2012)

As I've said before, he reminds me of johnusa. 
Informative and interesting stuff, but he just starts a thread and leaves it hanging.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2012)

I have yet to see where anyone has claimed that fracking depletes the water table. Pollutes it, and renders it unfit for use in some cases, but no claims of depleting it.


----------



## waltky (Apr 8, 2012)

Man-made quakes caused by resource production...

*Study ties oil, gas production to Midwest quakes*
_Fri, Apr 6, 2012  Oil and gas production may explain a sharp increase in small earthquakes in the nation's midsection, a new study from the U.S. Geological Survey suggests._


> The rate has jumped six-fold from the late 20th century through last year, the team reports, and the changes are "almost certainly man-made."  Outside experts were split in their opinions about the report, which is not yet published but is due to be presented at a meeting later this month.  The study said a relatively mild increase starting in 2001 comes from increased quake activity in a methane production area along the state line between Colorado and New Mexico. The increase began about the time that methane production began there, so there's a "clear possibility" of a link, says lead author William Ellsworth of the USGS.  The increase over the nation's midsection has gotten steeper since 2009, due to more quakes in a variety of oil and gas production areas, including some in Arkansas and Oklahoma, the researchers say.
> 
> It's not clear how the earthquake rates might be related to oil and gas production, the study authors said. They note that others have linked earthquakes to injecting huge amounts of leftover wastewater deep into the earth.  There has been concern about potential earthquakes from a smaller-scale injection of fluids during a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which is used to recover gas. But Ellsworth said Friday he is confident that fracking is not responsible for the earthquake trends his study found, based on prior studies.  The study covers a swath of the United States that lies roughly west of Ohio and east of Utah. It counted earthquakes of magnitude 3 and above.
> 
> ...


----------



## Iplaynaked (Apr 8, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Many people do not realize this but natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing do not deplete water supplies:
> 
> Turning Natural Gas Into Water | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative[/url]



Lets see, water comes from earth, earth has natural gas, they use explosives & chemicals to break down earth, chemicals aren't dissoluble, chemicals stay in ground, water coming from ground gets contaminated by chemicals that have no where else to go, water is poisoned.

Like when in the 50's 60's and 70's cigarette companies paid doctors to say cigarettes weren't dangerous.

I'd post the link to the site I viewed but it won't let me post links.


----------



## Iplaynaked (Apr 8, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> How many times does it take for everyone to realize the Dimock water is safe and uncontaminated by natural gas development?



The EPA also said pink slime is safe for human consumption but up until 2001 it was only used in dog food. I don't trust ANY government agency.

It won't let me post links yet.


----------



## editec (Apr 8, 2012)

The FORCE OF STUPID is strong in this board.

Embrace the force and become one with the confederacy of dunces.


----------



## RGR (Apr 8, 2012)

Iplaynaked said:


> ...... water is poisoned.



Unless there is some huge, easily noticeable failure in the structural integrity of the well, hydraulic fracturing doesn't poison water. Sorry.


----------



## waltky (Apr 8, 2012)

Granny says, "Dat's right - cause dey come out a buncha puddin'-headed lib'rals after listenin' to dem lefty looney professors...

*Study: US College Students Advance Little Intellectually*
_April 06, 2012 - After 2 years, 45% show no significant improvement_


> This is the time of year when millions of American high-school seniors and their parents scramble to complete the process of finding, and getting accepted by, a college to begin the higher education process in September.  But theres some doubt about how high that level of learning will be.  The title of a new book tells the story. Based on a recent study by sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roska of the University of Virginia, the title is: "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses."
> 
> The professors interviewed 2,300 U.S. college undergraduates and reviewed their academic records.  They concluded that after two years in college, 45 percent of the students showed no significant improvement in key intellectual and creative skills such as critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.  These results come at a time when President Barack Obama, his education department and outside reformers are all saying that the United States had better start producing smarter college graduates if it wants to remain competitive globally.   The study of students behavior during those first two years in college may provide a clue as to whats breaking down.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 8, 2012)

Well, I can't be too critical. I pretty much partied my college days away.


----------



## RGR (Apr 8, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Students at Northampton Community College, Bloomsburg University and Lock Haven University get the rest of the story on Marcellus Shale and natural gas development:
> 
> College Students Getting Educated on Marcellus Shale | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Why do you continually pimp the same blog?


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 8, 2012)

Tell us more. In your own words.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 8, 2012)

And you don't have to view your own thread 60 times to see if someone has responded.


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> It's time to take concrete action toward development of New York's Marcellus Shale resources.
> 
> Put Your John Hancock Here for Natural Gas | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



Do you have the ability to tell us why we should take concrete steps towards Marcellus development (in an environment of very low prices), or are all you are capable of is dropping in links pimping a single formations development in a single state?


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> We are wrapping up our first year with a review of all that's happened including background on that great team of folks we have out in the field:
> 
> Natural Gas, Hydraulic Fracturing and Our Future | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative



If you are an advocacy group, why don't you come right out and say it, instead of carpet bombing this forum with threads, the cumulative result of which is we know you have an advocacy position, and don't appear to have any ability to talk about your position?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 10, 2012)

Is this spam and therefore to be banned from this site?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2012)

On the contrary, in some cases it has. And then there have been cases of careless handling and disposal of said chemcals by the drilling companies. Problem here is accountability over time. If the well pollutes the aquifer ten years down the road, who pays for the damages?


----------



## editec (Apr 10, 2012)

RGR said:


> Iplaynaked said:
> 
> 
> > ...... water is poisoned.
> ...


 
How does one "easily" notice a fracture that's hundreds of feet below the surface?

By noting the lost injection fluids?

If that is how it is _easily noticed_ then the damage to the aquifer is done BEFORE anything can be done about it, no?

Educate me, please.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 10, 2012)

Why would anyone support more pollution, when they can support clean energy that costs less? I guess because they are tools of oil companies


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Why would anyone support more pollution, when they can support clean energy that costs less? I guess because they are tools of oil companies



It has been claimed that the group Tom heads up (his self proclaimed title is "Campaign Manager") is industry funded.

Here is Tom, campaign manager for what some consider to be an industry funded front.

Who We Are | Energy In Depth  Northeast Marcellus Initiative

Here is Tom's resume, loaded with PR and business type consulting

http://www.shepstone.net/Resume.pdf

Notice the fine lack of oil and gas experience, and claim of "land use development". Gee...I wonder who might profit from certain types of "land use" development....perhaps the people who sponsor the blog he continually pimps on this website?

Energy in Depth - Tom Shepstone...Paid for By American Petroleum Institute?

Are there rules here for industry shills who just carpet bomb the place with links, and are apparently paid to do it? Noticeable by their inability to actually SPEAK on the topic they reference, is there any way to keep paid industry shills out of here?


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 10, 2012)

I like the articles, but not the delivery method.


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Is this spam and therefore to be banned from this site?



Apparently it is. Tom is apparently part of a paid industry front group to pimp Marcellus.

Energy in Depth - Tom Shepstone..Pimping for the American Petroleum Institute


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> On the contrary, in some cases it has.



To know for sure, we would have to be more specific about the terms. For example, I have certainly fraced into a shallow aquifer before, old faithful suddenly appearing up the backside of a well (casing hanger on the 4-1/2 rather than a wellhead) indicating that I had burst the pipe, and without sufficient depth to the surface casing...presto....I put frac fluids into contact with shallow aquifer. 

Did I poison anyone? Of course not. Did anyone notice besides me and the frac crew? Nope. So is THAT the kind of poison someone is talking about? Certainly this type of failure is easier to spot than a slow, insidious one, but a slow insidious one has one huge problem working against it, long term....differential pressure.



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		

> And then there have been cases of careless handling and disposal of said chemcals by the drilling companies. Problem here is accountability over time. If the well pollutes the aquifer ten years down the road, who pays for the damages?



How does a well pollute an aquifer for 10 years without someone noticing? Certainly I will admit it is possible, but having some experience with even poorly managed companies, THEY can spot these things pretty quicker. Maybe someone as ignorant as our Jiggsy the Parrot would be that stupid, but the companies would rather put the gas into a pipe and get paid for it then allow it thief zones to steal it from them. And this is more of a production problem now, not a hydraulic fracturing problem.


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

editec said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > Iplaynaked said:
> ...



Depends on what is going on. You see such things on the surface during a frac job by watching the flow rates and pressures, during production you tend to notice differences between sandface and surface flow rates, indicating a thief zone.  There are also anomalous pressure and production profiles, suddenly your annulus gains pressure for an unexplained reason, a local shallow well suddenly starts bubbling up in someone's driveway, etc etc. All sorts of ways to notice when things go back with pipe integrity.



			
				editec said:
			
		

> If that is how it is _easily noticed_ then the damage to the aquifer is done BEFORE anything can be done about it, no?
> 
> Educate me, please.



You will have to define what you consider "damage" to an aquifer. For example, if I put 8,000 psi against a shallow aquifer for 10 seconds, is that "damage"? If I then remove the pressure to a point lower than the hydrostatic of the aquifer, reversing the flow, do I then "fix" the damage?


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 10, 2012)

I'd like nothing more than to comment in support of the article and this thread, but you don't rate it. 

You're doing a disservice to a very deserving industry. Unless you can expound on a topic with your own original input, preferably from experience, then you have no purpose here.


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court's Sackett decision may have forced EPA to start applying reason and back up on its forays into the natural gas debate with ill-considered attacks on hydraulic fracturing:



Tom, do you even know what hydraulic fracturing is? And tell us, how much are you paid to SPAM the forums with what is obviously an advocacy position?


----------



## RGR (Apr 10, 2012)

TShepstone said:


> Rachael Colley tells the story of what's happening in NY (nothing) verssus PA where natural gas is creating prosperity:



How much per post are you paid Tom?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 10, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Good article. Too bad this is the very economic success story that Obama and the EPA wish to crush.



Bad link


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Good article. Too bad this is the very economic success story that Obama and the EPA wish to crush.
> ...



What link? Who fucked this up anyway? The MergeMod?


----------



## RGR (Apr 11, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Looks like all the spam from Tom Shepstone and his supporters were lumped into a single thread, this one.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 11, 2012)

Oh. 
BTW I'm not hep to Shep.


----------



## RGR (Apr 11, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Oh.
> BTW I'm not hep to Shep.



I know. When I said "his supporters" I was thinking more about the people who pay him to spam forums, not people who may agree with him. Hell, I am a firm believer in drilling in general, I just can't stand people being paid to pimp, don't know anything about the topic, can't stand on their own two feet intellectually, etc etc.


----------

