# holy shit this is awesome if true, could reduce oil imports by half in 10 years



## blu (Feb 9, 2011)

News Headlines



> A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
> 
> Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a daymore than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.



great news 

I really hope no one from the goverement fucks this up. keep the epa away


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 9, 2011)

Umm since we consume 19.6 million barells per day....


----------



## Martin35 (Feb 9, 2011)

The sands being explored were well known for many years, the horizontal drilling methodology used to produce the "tight" thin stratified formations is still being developed but with ever increasing oil prices that technology will get a boost, as success breeds success. 
Mud motors and directional steering techniques have come a long way.
Making predictions about the amount of reserves that will be gained is a suckers game in my opinion, the bird in the bush being a hypothetical and all.


----------



## rdean (Feb 9, 2011)

Let's put all of our Republican scientists on our energy problems.  Between the two of them, who knows what they might come up with?


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 9, 2011)

I wonder why they aren't using this technique in the state of New York?

Pensylvania is experiencing an economic boom because of it.


----------



## Zander (Feb 9, 2011)

Obama thinks we'd be better off building more choo choo trains!! 
CHOO CHOO!!!!


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 9, 2011)

That dude jumped the tracks long ago.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 9, 2011)

A good example of republican soloutions


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Umm since we consume 19.6 million barells per day....



 how do you think we get anywhere? incrementally.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 9, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> A good example of republican soloutions



Republicans are this country's economic SWAT team. Democrats are the party of SQUAT.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 10, 2011)

This shoddy piece of journalism was played up on the business page of every major newspaper in the country (including ours), and denialists eat it right up, as intended.

Meanwhile, the FAR, far more important story about the former Saudi Aramco executive admitting inflated Saudi reserves gets buried, if it ran at all.

*WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices*

_US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%_​
The Associated Press shale oil story above barely says a word about the drawbacks to hydraulic fracking, which is what this is about. It's a puff piece for domestic investment if there every was one. I challenge anyone to watch the documentary "Gasland," and then tell us all how we're "saved" by this "new" method. It's on HBO this month. It's not a new process at all, so the story is disingenuous from the opening sentence.

See, mini-earthquakes under your neighborhood and mine, injecting dozens of toxic chemicals into the ground to frack the gas and oil loose? Tends to pollute the water table.

For a bit of perspective, consider the parts of the story the Associated Press threw in there to "appear" impartial, yet failed to expand upon: 

_Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling. The agency studied use of the process in shallower drilling operations in 2004 and found that it was safe.​_
Oops. Shallow drilling tests 7 years ago isn't full-bore deep fracking. It's not safe at all. Did this author just submit the press release offered by Chesapeake Energy Systems?

_Within five years, analysts and executives predict, the newly unlocked fields are expected to produce 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day, enough to boost U.S. production 20 percent to 40 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates production will grow a more modest 500,000 barrels per day._​
This is flat incorrect at best, and willfully misleading at worst. Boosting it 20-40% assumes existing other capacity remains flat. Instead, it's declining. Shale oil production will not make up for that, no matter how quickly they pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the new infrastructure. Regardless, do you believe 500,0000 barrels per day increase will save western economies? We consume 20 million barrels per day, and by the time these fields are mature? Probably 25 million (assuming the recession truly ends and demand can even grow)

Even if the most optimistic forecast in this already questionable story is to be considered, within five years, any gains made by far-more expensive shale oil "expansion" won't come close to countering the decline of existing domestic and imported capacity. 

And of course, the best part:

_The country's shale oil resources aren't nearly as big as the country's shale gas resources. Drillers have unlocked decades' worth of natural gas, an abundance of supply that may keep prices low for years.* U.S. shale oil on the other hand will only supply one to two percent of world consumption by 2015, not nearly enough to affect prices*._​
Gosh... Somehow, this part might have been better served near the top where most readers stopped reading. Not buried near the tag line at the end.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2011)

rdean said:


> Let's put all of our Republican scientists on our energy problems.  Between the two of them, who knows what they might come up with?



I thought you said 6% of scientists are Republican. If there are only 2 Republican scientists that would mean there are only 33 scientists. 

Liberal math strikes again.


----------



## RGR (Feb 10, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> The Associated Press shale oil story above barely says a word about the drawbacks to hydraulic fracking, which is what this is about. It's a puff piece for domestic investment if there every was one. I challenge anyone to watch the documentary "Gasland," and then tell us all how we're "saved" by this "new" method. It's on HBO this month. It's not a new process at all, so the story is disingenuous from the opening sentence.



So they are as ignorant about the oil business as you are. Hardly a surprise. And "Gasland" is a joke, people have been lighting their well water on fire for generations, only someone ignorant of what happens when coal mines are dewatered would think it was caused by hydraulic fracturing.

For the record, I have only been in charge of perhaps a few dozen frac jobs as a field engineer, so my experience with this procedure is limited. 

Put another way, I've already forgotten more than Jiggs can cut and paste on the topic, or even manufacture whole cloth because he doesn't know anything about well design.




			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> See, mini-earthquakes under your neighborhood and mine, injecting dozens of toxic chemicals into the ground to frack the gas and oil loose? Tends to pollute the water table.



No it doesn't. And what's funny is, you don't even know WHY.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Even if the most optimistic forecast in this already questionable story is to be considered, within five years, any gains made by far-more expensive shale oil "expansion" won't come close to countering the decline of existing domestic and imported capacity.



Please parrot a reference, because no one is about to take YOUR word for anything related to oil and gas. Come on Jiggys, whip out a cut and paste for us! Make it a good one! You wouldn't want to get caught making up nonsense like last time! 

PS: Figured out when we can start that 2 for 5 deal yet, I've got me a hankering to be like the Clampetts and you are just the sort of sucker I need to make that happen!


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

For the record Jiggs because you clearly are far, far out of your depth yet again, ground water is called fossil water for a reason.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 11, 2011)

RGR said:


> So they are as ignorant about the oil business as you are. Hardly a surprise. And "Gasland" is a joke, people have been lighting their well water on fire for generations, only someone ignorant of what happens when coal mines are dewatered would think it was caused by hydraulic fracturing.



Clever. But the documentary makes very clear that the instances alluded to arise only AFTER the fracking infrastructure goes in. Your punt to irrelevant, same-as-its-always been, coal mine instances has no bearing on what's actually presented in the film. LOL. What are you, a paid lobbyist now for the industry? You sure sound like one. 

It's mind-boggling just how much of a douche you clearly are. You get more obnoxious with each response that tries distort the overall condition. I come on here perhaps twice a month, whereas you respond within the hour each time I visit. And yet you have only 70 posts. Are you that much of a fucking loser? Or is this a topic you're curiously eager to spin on random vBulletin forums?



RGR said:


> For the record, I have only been in charge of perhaps a few dozen frac jobs as a field engineer, so my experience with this procedure is limited.



And yet, when asked, repeatedly, to display just how much shale gas (or shale oil) the U.S. has produced in any given year, you've flat deflected from the challenge, and on to petty and pretentious side pap that doesn't refute the condition at all.

Either way, thanks for revealing your agenda. You're in the industry, to the point of being obviously emotionally invested in its well-being. Gosh, who knew?  

As an industry "insider", clearly you'd have the figures, and can offer the perspective, regarding just how much these "unconventionals" actually represent in overall energy pie chart. Both so far, and going forward into the near- to mid-term future.

It's obvious why. It's because you know that even the rosiest estimation of expanded unconventional production has never, and will not, offset existing conventional decline from past peak fields. If you could show how it would, by any accepted agency, you'd have been all over it.  All you guys have done, including the drones quoted in that rosie AP story on U.S. shale oil this week, is say "it's down there, and we have magic new chemicals!"... not that its feasible to expand the industry inside the U.S. in any cost-effective manner that will sustain growth.



RGR said:


> Put another way, I've already forgotten more than Jiggs can cut and paste on the topic, or even manufacture whole cloth because he doesn't know anything about well design.



Uh huh. When all else fails, appeal to unfalsifiable claim. A common sanctimonious internet tactic.

You may very well know all the ins-and-outs of hydraulic fracking, and that's so great!! It's truly fine work you lads are doing out there, shooting your chemical shake deep into the ground below to loosen up ever more oil and gas from within rock. ... But you're still not admitting to the minuscule liquid volume that shale gas and shale oil currently provide the existing paradigm.  It's not much, never really will be.

Either way, I guess we'll find out how much traction the HF process has when the Science Advisory Board reviews the EPA's study on it in early March. Or, whenever it leaks.



RGR said:


> No it doesn't. And what's funny is, you don't even know WHY.



Oh no? OK.... Why don't you write up a concise little narrative that explains the process for everyone in layman's terms. I mean, you know, replete with all the obligatory condescending bullshit on a personal level, but still possessing some semblance of substance. Tell us how the process in no way resembles a mini-earth quake. Or how the chemical mixture used is harmless. 



RGR said:


> Please parrot a reference, because no one is about to take YOUR word for anything related to oil and gas. Come on Jiggys, whip out a cut and paste for us! Make it a good one! You wouldn't want to get caught making up nonsense like last time!



Look at you, attempting to re-write forum history. So cute. Oops, nothing presented has been "made up nonsense." 

Regardless, to respond to your latest challenge, here's that pesky Joint Chiefs thing again:

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf

Note page 25, and that flat-as-can-be tan segment in the bottom IEA graph. Gosh, does that assessment of unconventional oil production somehow meet the plummeting light blue portion (representing dying existing capacity) going forward? They seem to be having to add a lot of other colors in order to keep up that ever-rising slope. Unfortunately, most  of those other colors fall into the wedge the  EIA has labeled "as yet unidentified." Kind of a problem. 

And of course, the JOE's conclusion: 



> *Energy Summary*
> 
> To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then. During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. *The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.*
> 
> ...



If that doesn't scream peak is here and decline is imminent, I don't know what does.

No doubt, you'll have some epin spin-spective on what that passage "reeeeally" means. Can't wait. Afterall, you're IN the industry. If not, you can just scramble to JD's famous little "peak oil debunked" Web site and get the fossil fuel flag fiefdom version. ... I know he hasn't posted since last summer, but I'm sure he'll be along any day now.

It's telling that you had no comment on the WikiLeaks cable regarding that "violin playing" former Saudi-Aramco VP, though. That's the far-more impacting story that broke this week. A good decision on your part to ignore it. You guys haven't quite gotten your marching orders on how to spin that one. You probably won't, and just get back to your "tried and true" method of pretending I'M the one who's the zealot and parrot between the two of us. Irony.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 11, 2011)

westwall said:


> For the record Jiggs because you clearly are far, far out of your depth yet again, ground water is called fossil water for a reason.



LOL... Like I said... You're been reduced to sideline cheerleader. 

Remember back when you mattered?


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2011)

*sigh*

Yet another hijacked thread. 

Is it just coincidence your initials are the same as Jesus Christ's.

JEEEZUZ CHRISTE JIGGS GIVE IT A BREAK


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 11, 2011)

Zander said:


> Obama thinks we'd be better off building more choo choo trains!!
> CHOO CHOO!!!!



REALLY?

you are going to go there?


Do you understand at all what high speed rail offers a country?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 11, 2011)

The desire to swat at ANYTHING that Obama proposes is obsessional with some of these people


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2011)

blu said:


> News Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is truly a job-creating industry. One that produces hard goods, employs millions, contributes to real GDP, reduces the need for imported oil, provides a secure and reliable commodity, pays billions in taxes and royalties. 

No - the government IS out to fuck it up. Obama wants $40 billion of this industry's money. 
Why? TO WIN THE FUTURE!

RIGZONE - Oil-Drilling Boom Under Way

_Oil-drilling activity in the U.S. has accelerated to a pace not seen in a generation as energy companies, oilfield contractors and landowners rush to exploit newly profitable sources of crude.

The number of rigs aiming for oil in the U.S. is the highest since at least 1987, according to Baker Hughes. The 818 rigs tallied by the oilfield-service company last week are nearly double last year's count and about 10 times the number in the late 1990s.

While the drilling surge is unlikely to yield enough crude to alter the global oil-supply picture, analysts predicted that the new activity, centered on so-called unconventional reservoirs, could greatly boost domestic oil production and help offset declining output in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico._


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut (Feb 11, 2011)

you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?






When you can finally make a trip here to the US you will realize just how silly your comment is.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2011)

Proper tire inflation, regular engine maintenance,  and removing un-needed trunk junk would do wonders for MPG.


----------



## RGR (Feb 11, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > So they are as ignorant about the oil business as you are. Hardly a surprise. And "Gasland" is a joke, people have been lighting their well water on fire for generations, only someone ignorant of what happens when coal mines are dewatered would think it was caused by hydraulic fracturing.
> ...



Thats the difference between me and a parrot like you. I am quite familiar with what this type of docudrama DOESN'T tell you. You don't have a clue...all you can do is parrot. I've suggested this before...fire off a neuron occasionally and learn something, stop being led around by the nose by your own ignorance of these topics.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Oh no? OK.... Why don't you write up a concise little narrative that explains the process for everyone in layman's terms. I mean, you know, replete with all the obligatory condescending bullshit on a personal level, but still possessing some semblance of substance. Tell us how the process in no way resembles a mini-earth quake. Or how the chemical mixture used is harmless.



Why? You haven't even displayed the minimum intelligence of a layman on any topic involved in the energy subforum. You certainly can't even show that during the process of reading what I have wrote you have actually even LEARNED anything, you can't even be counted on to google up some EIA numbers which anyone who wants to pretend to understand oil topics should be able to locate in less than 2 minutes of googling. Display a working intelligence and I would be more than happy to have a conversation on how hydraulic fracturing works, until then....learn to google something except peak oil propaganda.



			
				Jiggsacasey said:
			
		

> Regardless, to respond to your latest challenge, here's that pesky Joint Chiefs thing again:
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
> 
> Note page 25, and that flat-as-can-be tan segment in the bottom IEA graph.



Again...for the ignorant here who don't actually read their own references prior to pretending they have value.....page 2 of the cited reference:

"This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict 
what will happen in the next twenty-five years."

Cool. So they speculate,and aren't predicting what's going to happen. I suggest you read the disclaimers on your references to determine if they are, or are not, worth dick. This document is better than a normal peaker document if only because they admit it up front when they do some good ol' fashioned arm waving.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> No doubt, you'll have some epin spin-spective on what that passage "reeeeally" means.



No spin necessary when they admit they aren't trying to predict stuff. It requires some fool to pretend it has value when they themselves aren't willing to use it to predict anything.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> It's telling that you had no comment on the WikiLeaks cable regarding that "violin playing" former Saudi-Aramco VP, though.



Heinberg is the violin player you moron, pay better attention to your own sources. al-Husseini has a decent resume...so does Dr. Saleri, the engineer who made darn certain that the peak oil accountant ( Matt Simmons ) was wrong when he wrote about Saudi oilfields.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> That's the far-more impacting story that broke this week. A good decision on your part to ignore it. You guys haven't quite gotten your marching orders on how to spin that one. You probably won't, and just get back to your "tried and true" method of pretending I'M the one who's the zealot and parrot between the two of us. Irony.



al-Husseini wasn't talking about Saudi reserves, he was talking about every else in OPEC. Here is him clearing up why the cable was wrong. Seems like diplomats don't know any more about oil, reserves and resources than ignorant peak oil parrots.

RIGZONE - Ex-Aramco Official: US Cable Wrong to Dispute Saudi Reserves


----------



## Zander (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Obama thinks we'd be better off building more choo choo trains!!
> ...


A chance to lose hundreds of billions? If it is such a great idea, let private enterprise build it. We don't need another Amtrak.


----------



## Zander (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.



I am all for private enterprise building high speed rail lines.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Obama thinks we'd be better off building more choo choo trains!!
> ...



just think, Amtrak..
nuff said.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Let's put all of our Republican scientists on our energy problems.  Between the two of them, who knows what they might come up with?
> ...


You, sir, win one internets.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Umm since we consume 19.6 million barells per day....


Oh, well, then, why bother?


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.


You mean like someone claiming we shouldn't try new oil recovery methods?


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2011)

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?



Because your little beer cans with 1.3 liter engines are useless for stuff like this:


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 11, 2011)

Zander said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Like private enterprise built Hoover Dam?
We need longer term planning than how much profit it will bring in next quarter.

Private enterprise actually bought out and shut down many public transit systems like trollyies and such early in the 20th century to make people buys cars , gas and tires.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...






Just imagine what would happen if instead of pissing 50 billion, minimum, down a rat hole for something that very few actually want, that no one needs, that will continue to lose countless more billions, and instead gave it to those doing research on fusion power.  50 billion couldn't help them one bit now could it?

Nah, that would be too anti-science.  Fools.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> The desire to swat at ANYTHING that Obama proposes is obsessional with some of these people



You mean like the high speed rail that they wanted to spend billions on in Ohio? It would have averaged about 39 MPH. that's some high speed shit right there.

Fortunately our new (Republican) Governor put a halt to the stupidity.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > A good example of republican soloutions
> ...



Yea, Republicans spent eight long years shooting it dead.  Seemed to work.  But they did do a good job building up China.  You have to admire them for that success.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 11, 2011)

The people in FL voted in a high speed rail system and Jeb Bush killed it.


----------



## Samson (Feb 11, 2011)

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



I haven't seen _Gasland_, but understand the basic fracing procedure: Pump liquid down a hole at high pressure, and "Fracture" the underlying formation. The liquid can be a combination of many different components: water, sand, acid, and other chemicals which for propriatary reasons, Baker, Champion, et al., won't identify. These other components will enhance the effectiveness of the fracture (i.e., acid will eat away at rock, and the sand acts to hold the fracture in place), and more oil or gas will flow out the well-head.

Generally the stimulation technique is used on older wells, which comprise most plays in the USA, including Pennsylvania where a couple of producers have been shut down because of groundwater contamination issues, real or imagined.

There are environmentally friendly alternatives...ClO2 comes to mind, but it is not as easy to apply as dumping a bunch of HF down hole.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Feb 11, 2011)

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?



Do save up for your trip here.   You must have some really weird fantasies.

This statement makes as much sense as I were to assume Germany is nothing more than brown shirts and liederhosen.


----------



## Samson (Feb 11, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> > you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?
> ...



Ya, you forgot das Fraulines


----------



## RGR (Feb 11, 2011)

Samson said:


> I haven't seen _Gasland_, but understand the basic fracing procedure: Pump liquid down a hole at high pressure, and "Fracture" the underlying formation.



Pretty much. 



			
				Samson said:
			
		

> Generally the stimulation technique is used on older wells, which comprise most plays in the USA, including Pennsylvania where a couple of producers have been shut down because of groundwater contamination issues, real or imagined.
> 
> There are environmentally friendly alternatives...ClO2 comes to mind, but it is not as easy to apply as dumping a bunch of HF down hole.



Stimulation is used on brand new wells, part of the primary completion. They use it in all sorts of low permeability rock, which are the unconventional resources like the shales of the Bakken (oil) and Barnett (gas). It is quite possible for a wells construction to be compromised in some way, leading to all sorts of bad secondary effects. However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 11, 2011)

Samson said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> ...



Drill baby drill!


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2011)

Take me to your Liederhosen.


----------



## Samson (Feb 11, 2011)

RGR said:


> However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.



I'm not sure how "the companies are well equipped to handle [something bad happening]?"

Bill to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing of Wells Introduced in Congress - Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog



> *A house exploded* in late 2007 near Cleveland, Ohio after gas seeped into its water well. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a 153-page report blaming a nearby gas well's faulty casing and hydraulic fracturing for causing the seep.
> 
> In Dimock, Pennsylvania, several drinking water wells have been contaminated with methane, and some have exploded. In February, *the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection charged Cabot Oil & Gas with two violations it says caused the contamination*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> REALLY?
> 
> you are going to go there?
> 
> ...



Nothing.

Whatever benefits you think can be offered by that 19th century technology can easily be topped by the flexibility more modern technology.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.



This from a guy who is promoting trains!?!?


----------



## Zander (Feb 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.
> ...



He wants a choo choo twain,   and ice cream too!!


----------



## RGR (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.
> ...



If you need to do a remedial squeeze job on your surface casing, because the integrity is somehow compromised, you don't ask Farmer Joe or our local oil idiot Jiggsy to design, supervisor and verify the procedure. 

I myself get called in by various organizations to offer professional advice on how these things happen, how can they be fixed, can liability be determined in specific cases, those sorts of things. Including one of the examples of things going wrong that you referenced.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > REALLY?
> ...



If airplanes flew on electricity I could agree with you.
However they do not.  And electricity can be generated from several sources that are NOT oil based.
Even diesel locomotives are electric drive.  they just have a diesel generator onboard.


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.

I'm convinced that Jiggs is one of thousands of academia that have been accumulating "Peak Oil Evidence" _for the past 60 years_ and presenting it to his junior college Freshman Government and Sociology 101 classes in a misguided effort to keep them awake.


----------



## RGR (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.



The increase in litigation isn't because of the modern use of hydraulic fracturing, but its use in more populated areas. Litigation increases not because people have honest gripes about the procedure, but because there is this big, noisy, lit up at night THING beside their house and it turns out that they don't own the mineral rights and therefore derive no financial benefit from the production of oil and gas. They then sue for all sorts of ridiculous reasons, the pollution of their groundwater just being one that sounds more serious than "I'm pissed because I won't be making any money off this thing and I was stupid for not buying the mineral rights when I purchased the property".



			
				Samson said:
			
		

> I'm convinced that Jiggs is one of thousands of academia that have been accumulating "Peak Oil Evidence" _for the past 60 years_ and presenting it to his junior college Freshman Government and Sociology 101 classes in a misguided effort to keep them awake.



Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.
> ...



Based on my experience getting a Masters, his example is the rule, rather than the exception.

I agree that there is more litigation as a result of wells being drilled nearer to populations, but the response from industry has to be more than, "It's Your fault for living near our well sites," and, "There's no way we're telling you what we injecting into the ground, but trust us, it won't hurt you."

Industry needs to accept that they will face more litigation if they are unable, or unwilling to provide evidence that they are innocent. I know this contradicts the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" basis of our law, however, why wait for someone to prove your guilt?


----------



## RGR (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?
> ...



This is an awful thought. 



			
				Samson said:
			
		

> I agree that there is more litigation as a result of wells being drilled nearer to populations, but the response from industry has to be more than, "It's Your fault for living near our well sites," and, "There's no way we're telling you what we injecting into the ground, but trust us, it won't hurt you."



In America, if you do not have full ownership of your property, you do not by default get to to blame everyone else for the consequences of this oversight. Either you sold those mineral rights, and must deal with the consequences of your actions, or you bought the property knowing you did not have the mineral rights, and by implication someone, someday, will show up to claim their rights. In neither case is it the developers "fault" for exercising legal rights which you had every opportunity to know about in advance, and choose to ignore.

As far as "trust us, it won't hurt you", that isn't it at all. In many cases the chemicals added to the water during hydraulic fracturing are harmful to humans. The entire point of a proper well design is to keep those chemicals encased in rock, cement and steel. For a period of hours, after which they are retrieved back up the wellbore to the surface and either reused or disposed of. No one pumps a frac job away hoping it ends up in someones well water, which is often the implication from some in their efforts to demonize the development of natural resources.



			
				Samson said:
			
		

> Industry needs to accept that they will face more litigation if they are unable, or unwilling to provide evidence that they are innocent. I know this contradicts the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" basis of our law, however, why wait for someone to prove your guilt?



Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



Indeed, and I would think that obvious vulnerability would inspire "Responsible Care."




> From 2005 to 2009, Halliburton Co. (HAL), Baker Hughes Inc.'s (BHI) BJ Services Co., and other firms injected 32.2 million gallons of fluid that contained diesel fuel in wells in 19 states, according to a Jan. 31 letter than Reps. Henry Waxman (D. Calif.), Edward Markey (D. Mass.), and Diana Degette (D. Colo.) sent to Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson.
> 
> ....
> Lawmakers raised concerns that diesel fuel in the fluids could pollute drinking water supplies.
> ...




Read more: UPDATE: Fracking Companies May Have Violated US Law - Investigators - Investing - Dow Jones Newswire - SmartMoney.com UPDATE: Fracking Companies May Have Violated US Law - Investigators - Investing - Dow Jones Newswire - SmartMoney.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Trains do not run on electricity, they run on diesel fuel. Or do you somehow think that electricity somehow springs into existence magically?


----------



## RGR (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.
> ...



What obvious vulnerability? Short of firing a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1A1 tank through the redundant layers of cement and steel designed to protect the freshwater table, are you aware of anything else which wouldn't be covered under any reasonable definition of "responsible care" already built into current well designs?


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



Actually, I was simply agreeing with you: "They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award."

I also posted the example:



> From 2005 to 2009, Halliburton Co. (HAL), Baker Hughes Inc.'s (BHI) BJ Services Co., and other firms injected 32.2 million gallons of fluid that contained diesel fuel in wells in 19 states



I'm guessing that WHAT is injected is as important as "redundent layers of cement and steel." However your point is valid: as long as it it impossible for frack fluids to contact the freshwater table, then what does it matter what is in them? 

UNTIL...the day contaminates are found in a large aquifer.

Then it won't matter HOW it happened, unless Halliburton, Baker, or BJ can prove that your hypothetical Sabot Round was responsible.

The legislatures have covered their ass.


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Electric Train at the Oil and Gas Museum


----------



## RGR (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> I'm guessing that WHAT is injected is as important as "redundent layers of cement and steel." However your point is valid: as long as it it impossible for frack fluids to contact the freshwater table, then what does it matter what is in them?



I'm betting that diesel is simply covered under a separate regulation than "all other frac fluids", which is why they focused on something so minor. Because they are exempt in what other fluids they pump, the people wanting to make a fuss picked one they knew was specifically exempted from the regulations.



			
				Samson said:
			
		

> UNTIL...the day contaminates are found in a large aquifer.



Sure. And the law of averages says sooner or later, it is bound to happen. Omelet, egg shells, etc etc.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



OK, those trains run on electricity.


----------



## Samson (Feb 13, 2011)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing that WHAT is injected is as important as "redundent layers of cement and steel." However your point is valid: as long as it it impossible for frack fluids to contact the freshwater table, then what does it matter what is in them?
> ...



I hope Tim Probert and Andy O'Donnel will be able to chew gum with their butt-cheeks.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 13, 2011)

RGR said:


> Thats the difference between me and a parrot like you. I am quite familiar with what this type of docudrama DOESN'T tell you. You don't have a clue...all you can do is parrot. I've suggested this before...fire off a neuron occasionally and learn something, stop being led around by the nose by your own ignorance of these topics.



This reads like a poster who can't spin the material presented in the program. When you're done being an "arrogant prick", as you announced when you joined here, answer the question: Is the claim that the condition began AFTER the shale gas infrastructure was in place or not? Dick.



RGR said:


> Why? You haven't even displayed the minimum intelligence of a layman on any topic involved in the energy subforum. You certainly can't even show that during the process of reading what I have wrote you have actually even LEARNED anything, you can't even be counted on to google up some EIA numbers which anyone who wants to pretend to understand oil topics should be able to locate in less than 2 minutes of googling. Display a working intelligence and I would be more than happy to have a conversation on how hydraulic fracturing works, until then....learn to google something except peak oil propaganda.



This about confirms it. When challenged to sum up what hydraulic fracking actually is, you run like a pussy, and get right back to acting like an unaccountable punk.



RGR said:


> Again...for the ignorant here who don't actually read their own references prior to pretending they have value.....page 2 of the cited reference:
> 
> "This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict
> what will happen in the next twenty-five years."
> ...



Epic spin. Because obviously, the Pentagon is in the business of releasing million dollar studies to the public on EIA data they AREN'T confident is actually happening. Just mere "speculation." LOL... Tool.

What about that graph in question by the EIA is wrong? 

Like I said, and you ran from again: Unconventionals (heavier, far more expensive crap) WILL NOT make up for dying existing capacity of conventionals. Considering you're not denying that fact, as presented by the Energy Information Administration in clear-as-day color, we'll accept that you were wrong again.



RGR said:


> Heinberg is the violin player you moron, pay better attention to your own sources. al-Husseini has a decent resume...so does Dr. Saleri, the engineer who made darn certain that the peak oil accountant ( Matt Simmons ) was wrong when he wrote about Saudi oilfields.



Clearly, I'm referring to your obnoxious propensity to surface dismiss every source or advocate presented. Regardless, considering how poorly you're faring with me on a message board behind the security of your anonymous computer screen, I'm beyond confident that locking horns with a man like Richard Heinberg would leave you a puddle of incoherent babble and rage.

Now, I'm sure you'll fire back with your obligatory round of irrelevant pablum about how intellectually superior you feel you are, but if you're done pretending shale gas and shale oil can make up the difference (a production figure challenge you've run from some 4-5 times now), then I'll go ahead and assume you're aware that your ploy is not fooling anyone here. ... You know, despite your silent cheerleaders following behind and "thanking" in your wake. LOL.

Regardless of his loyalty to Saudi-Aramco after the fact when pressed on his comments, Husseini acknowledges global peak is here. He is no "violin player."

You denialist parrot.


----------



## RGR (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> What about that graph in question by the EIA is wrong?



Like I said before...what is so pathetic about you is you don't even know WHY you are wrong, why other people are wrong, and haven't displayed a single neuron of effort trying to learn what it is you obviously don't know.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You denialist parrot.



Funny. Now you can't even come up with own insults and instead are parroting me.


----------



## Samson (Feb 13, 2011)

RGR said:


> Please parrot a reference, because no one is about to take YOUR word for anything related to oil and gas. Come on Jiggys, whip out a cut and paste for us! !






			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You denialist parrot.










RGR said:


> Funny. Now you can't even come up with own insults and instead are parroting me.


----------



## Samson (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> Now, I'm sure you'll fire back with your obligatory round of irrelevant pablum about how intellectually superior you feel you are, but if you're done pretending shale gas and shale oil can make up the difference (a production figure challenge you've run from some 4-5 times now), then I'll go ahead and assume you're aware that your ploy is not fooling anyone here. ... You know, despite your silent cheerleaders following behind and "thanking" in your wake. LOL..



Jiggs is decending to new levels of pathetic envy for common sense over his frothy babbling.

Every single time a thread appears with the mention of oil, gas, or coal, Jiggs drags out his Rocinante 60 year old Rhetoric, and begins his tired Don Quixote immatation.

Old "Pancho" Rocks should be here shortly to ape whatever blithering nonsense he manages to spew, and rest assured he _will continue_.

After all, he's been practicing.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 13, 2011)

Samson said:


> Jiggs is decending to new levels of pathetic envy for common sense over his frothy babbling.
> 
> Every single time a thread appears with the mention of oil, gas, or coal, Jiggs drags out his Rocinante 60 year old Rhetoric, and begins his tired Don Quixote immatation.
> 
> ...



$3.20 gas just called, asking you to STFU, and reminding that you became irrelevant to the energy forum about 5 months ago.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Feb 13, 2011)

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > What about that graph in question by the EIA is wrong?
> ...



Yes, you keep repeating this over and over. And yet when challenged to expand on that, you punt and pretend I wouldn't understand. You also refused to answer the very direct, very clear "Gasland" question again after your epic FAIL assertion.

My God, do you ever suck at this.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. Keep telling yourself that, and in doing so, keep failing to realize how you manage to reinforce the poetic irony that is your own unoriginal, cut-and-paste denialist screed - PARROT.

Still waiting for 1) those figures on unconventional oil and gas production in the U.S. and 2) a brief summation of what hydraulic fracking actually entails.

No doubt, you're too much of a pansy to do the work, because you know the reality supports my statements on the matter. Instead, you'll fire back with the same robotic "you're too dumb" narrative. Zzzz zzzz zzz.... You're not fooling anyone here, tool box.

But at least you've conceded that peak is here by admitting you take Husseini's word for it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...














You'll soon hear crickets too.  You lost go away and bother someone else.


----------



## Samson (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Jiggs is decending to new levels of pathetic envy for common sense over his frothy babbling.
> ...



$3.20/gallon gas...is that suppose to impress anyone with YOUR relevance?

Damn, you keep getting more pitiful despite yourself.


----------



## RGR (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> $3.20 gas just called, asking you to STFU, and reminding that you became irrelevant to the energy forum about 5 months ago.



The real price of gasoline was that higher than that in 1918. Did you happen to notice all the energy running out that happened then? They declared peak oil in the US a year later as well....hey...this is beginning to sound familiar!

Come on Jiggsy, is this really what you have been reduced to now? Noticing that real gas prices are lower than what they were before you were even born?


----------



## RGR (Feb 13, 2011)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > [..what is so pathetic about you is you don't even know WHY you are wrong, why other people are wrong, and haven't displayed a single neuron of effort trying to learn what it is you obviously don't know.
> ...



Pretend? You've already proven that you DON'T understand.  I can expand on anything I say, and I told you I wouldn't even use any proprietary data to do it. Can't promise you will understand it of course...which is the POINT. I have already expanded on topics you requested and gotten back propaganda videos and wiki quotes because you can't think for yourself. 



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You also refused to answer the very direct, very clear "Gasland" question again after your epic FAIL assertion.



If you actually asked a CLEAR question, I would be more than happy to answer it. I've already demonstrated exactly how, using your very own "gee I read it even if I didn't understand it" Hirsch report.

Choose a question. Don't load it with your usual nonsense, propaganda videos, baseless assertions or appeals to violin player level knowledge of the oil and gas business and I'd be happy to answer. Do try and keep it to a sentence or two, more than that and you really start to ramble into your parroting world.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Still waiting for 1) those figures on unconventional oil and gas production in the U.S. and 2) a brief summation of what hydraulic fracking actually entails.



Are these really the questions you want to ask? To round up some figures because you can't use google yourself, and do you really want to admit that Samson has already provided a perfectly reasonable brief summation for what hydraulic fracturing is and how envious you are of the succinct nature of his reply? Are you willing to admit that you don't know how to google, and someone else with no experience in the particulars is perfectly capable of summing up what a frac is, and YOU can't? 

Come on Jiggs, surely you have a REAL question to ask, a real "geared for the professional" type question?




			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> But at least you've conceded that peak is here by admitting you take Husseini's word for it.



I don't take Husseini's word for anything. Just because he is yet another in a long line of "running outters" doesn't make his prediction any more reasonable than the experts who claimed the same thing...in 1886. 

PS: Thats a clue Jiggsy....


----------

