# Fracking, some very good news



## Two Thumbs

South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News

You can't beat that with a stick.


----------



## Wiseacre

Good stuff, thanks for posting.   Eventually we're going to have to get off oil, but until the cleaner energy sources become economically viable without subsidies, we need to increase our oil and natural gas production.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Wiseacre said:


> Good stuff, thanks for posting.   Eventually we're going to have to get off oil, but until the cleaner energy sources become economically viable without subsidies, we need to increase our oil and natural gas production.



eventually we will have to get off oil.  but they were talking about billions of barrels just in that small region, so I think it's going to be a while before that occurs.

Hopefully they come out with rides that are run on natural gas.


----------



## rdean

Yea, good news!


----------



## manifold

A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.


----------



## martybegan

rdean said:


> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;



In rebuttal:

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf


----------



## martybegan

manifold said:


> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.



How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?

If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.

Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.


----------



## rdean

martybegan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal:
> 
> http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
Click to expand...


Uh, let's see.  Before the gas company drilled, no fire came out of the kitchen faucet.  After they drilled, by coincidence, fire pours out of the kitchen faucet, but they are totally unrelated.  The same thing happens again and again, everywhere they "fracture", but it's totally coincidence.  Yea, I believe that.  Uh huh.


----------



## RGR

rdean said:


> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;



Here we go again with the propaganda.

LOOK MA! I CAN LIGHT MY COALBED METHANE GAS IN MY WATER WELL ON FIRE! Nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing but it sure looks cool!


----------



## RGR

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
Click to expand...


Breath it alot? Generally causes asphyxia, but hey! If you don't have any proof of anything, claim whatever you'd like!


----------



## rdean

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
Click to expand...


It's the more than 50 chemical used in the process.  

trimethylbenzene

Chemicals used in 'fracking' often a mystery at spill cleanup time - News - The Times-Tribune

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/science/earth/17gas.html?_r=2&src=twrhp

The Bush administration exempted drilling for natural gas from any oversight.  So who knows what damage it causes?  Bush, the gift that just keeps on giving.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.



why is it a good thing to do that without examining what the potential for environmental damage is.


----------



## martybegan

rdean said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal:
> 
> http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, let's see.  Before the gas company drilled, no fire came out of the kitchen faucet.  After they drilled, by coincidence, fire pours out of the kitchen faucet, but they are totally unrelated.  The same thing happens again and again, everywhere they "fracture", but it's totally coincidence.  Yea, I believe that.  Uh huh.
Click to expand...


Links are there to be read. They did find some cases of drilled gas mixing with biological origin gas, and the compaines paid. in two of the cases in gasland it was found to be biologic in origin, i.e. not from drilling. 

Natural gas is normally drilled at depths far below water aquifers. the contamination that can happen results often from poor well gas pipe installation, and as this study shows can be identified vs. shallow biologic origin gas. 

Also please refer me to the study that says this happens "everywhere" they hyro-fracture.


----------



## martybegan

rdean said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the more than 50 chemical used in the process.
> 
> trimethylbenzene
> 
> Chemicals used in 'fracking' often a mystery at spill cleanup time - News - The Times-Tribune
> 
> The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/science/earth/17gas.html?_r=2&src=twrhp
> 
> The Bush administration exempted drilling for natural gas from any oversight.  So who knows what damage it causes?  Bush, the gift that just keeps on giving.
Click to expand...


again, read the report. the spill was due to a fuckup in the surface piping, not due to the procedure itself. Also I do agree they have to put the chemicals on the MSDS, even at the rediculously low levels found in the fluid. 

As an engineer myself, I dont have a problem with regulators, hell they make my job exist. my issue is with regulators who instead of making rules to help make the process safe, make rules to make the process impossible. That, coupled with the sad fact that lawyers have more of a say in how regulations are made than engineers leads to regulations that are more "cover my ass when something fucks up" or "find out who to sue" than actually trying to prevent fuckups in the first place.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rdean said:


> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;



debunked

By scientist


----------



## Two Thumbs

manifold said:


> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.



link

and not to that debunked movie


----------



## Two Thumbs

martybegan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal:
> 
> http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
Click to expand...


Among other things, it *alleges *that the 
hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminated nearby water wells with methane in a 
number of states including Colorado.

in other words, it doesn't prove.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it a good thing to do that without examining what the potential for environmental damage is.
Click to expand...


Drilling does minor harm. The same amount of harm any building would do it you cover the land with concrete.

The fracking is done well below the water line.  there is no hazard.

Unless you are prepared to start gather wood in the winter...


----------



## Toronado3800

Two Thumbs said:


> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.



Not bad.

My personal bet is at sixty dollars a barrel it will work environment be damned.  Think at one sixty they can probably do it right?

Still though, we probably will not run out during my life time.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Toronado3800 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad.
> 
> My personal bet is at sixty dollars a barrel it will work environment be damned.  Think at one sixty they can probably do it right?
> 
> Still though, we probably will not run out during my life time.
Click to expand...


If you don't like drilling or mining

support nuclear or learn to chop wood.


----------



## Toronado3800

Two Thumbs said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad.
> 
> My personal bet is at sixty dollars a barrel it will work environment be damned.  Think at one sixty they can probably do it right?
> 
> Still though, we probably will not run out during my life time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't like drilling or mining
> 
> support nuclear or learn to chop wood.
Click to expand...


Drilling seems to work with fewer big government subsidies than nuclear.  Although I believe we should keep our hands in nuclear it does not excite me much.

So where is the most similar operation to what will be going on in West Texas?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Toronado3800 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad.
> 
> My personal bet is at sixty dollars a barrel it will work environment be damned.  Think at one sixty they can probably do it right?
> 
> Still though, we probably will not run out during my life time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like drilling or mining
> 
> support nuclear or learn to chop wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drilling seems to work with fewer big government subsidies than nuclear.  Although I believe we should keep our hands in nuclear it does not excite me much.
> 
> So where is the most similar operation to what will be going on in West Texas?
Click to expand...


In the Big PA.

People want the drilling for the jobs and resources it brings and the liberals want to shut it down b/c it's drilling by Big Evul Oil.

I learned very quickly that liberals will never be happy with any form of energy.
Windmills kill birds and force them to change flight patterns
Solar causes light pollution [I kid you not] and it takes up vast amounts of land.

So lets go with what we know how to do, and at least have the jobs.

If it turns out that there are health issues, then they get the crap sued out of them and shut down.

But since no company wants to lose that kind of money.....


----------



## manifold

Two Thumbs said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link
> 
> and not to that debunked movie
Click to expand...


Google


----------



## manifold

Two Thumbs said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal:
> 
> http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Among other things, it *alleges *that the
> hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminated nearby water wells with methane in a
> number of states including Colorado.
> 
> in other words, it doesn't prove.
Click to expand...


Right, so lets just ignore it and make a few more shekels.  What's the worst thing that could happen anyway?


----------



## xsited1

Two Thumbs said:


> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.



Heard about this on the radio this morning:

Lawsuit in Arkansas Earthquakes Filed ? KRZK Local News


----------



## Two Thumbs

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal:
> 
> http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among other things, it *alleges *that the
> hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminated nearby water wells with methane in a
> number of states including Colorado.
> 
> in other words, it doesn't prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so lets just ignore it and make a few more shekels.  What's the worst thing that could happen anyway?
Click to expand...



They prove the company knew something was wrong and the region gets to sue the company into oblivion and put thousands out of work and put new BMW's in the lawyers garage.


----------



## Two Thumbs

xsited1 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heard about this on the radio this morning:
> 
> Lawsuit in Arkansas Earthquakes Filed ? KRZK Local News
Click to expand...


To say that's vague and a little light on details would be a vast under statement.

Is this guy claiming that the fracking caused an earth quake?


----------



## Father Time

Two Thumbs said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debunked
> 
> By scientist
Click to expand...


By which scientist exactly? And how?


----------



## Father Time

Two Thumbs said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it a good thing to do that without examining what the potential for environmental damage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drilling does minor harm. The same amount of harm any building would do it you cover the land with concrete.
> 
> The fracking is done well below the water line.  there is no hazard.
Click to expand...


OK prove it's not hazardous then.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Father Time said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> debunked
> 
> By scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By which scientist exactly? And how?
Click to expand...


He never actually proved his claims, he made assumptions, then allegations.

Debunking is easy when you have no proof.

not sure of the names.  I saw the reports on Stossel


----------



## Two Thumbs

Father Time said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it a good thing to do that without examining what the potential for environmental damage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drilling does minor harm. The same amount of harm any building would do it you cover the land with concrete.
> 
> The fracking is done well below the water line.  there is no hazard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK prove it's not hazardous then.
Click to expand...


It's no more hazardous than normal drilling.

There is no proof otherwise.

but if you want the safest?  support nuclear power.  It does the least amount of harm and has the highest safety rating.


----------



## Nosmo King

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
Click to expand...

And you're supposed to wash your hands after using the restroom.  And you're supposed to shore up that coal mine and keep the coal dust to a minimum.  And you're supposed to have confidence in a nuclear power plant even if it's built on a seismic fault line.

And you're supposed to have sufficient funding for those inspectors to ensure hydraulic fracing is done safely.  Now, what's all this about cutting the government's budget?


----------



## martybegan

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're supposed to wash your hands after using the restroom.  And you're supposed to shore up that coal mine and keep the coal dust to a minimum.  And you're supposed to have confidence in a nuclear power plant even if it's built on a seismic fault line.
> 
> And you're supposed to have sufficient funding for those inspectors to ensure hydraulic fracing is done safely.  Now, what's all this about cutting the government's budget?
Click to expand...


If the rules were simpler they would require less money to enforce, as you wouldnt need a team of government lawyers to interpret each one. Compliance can be determined from:

1. approval of drawings
2. Inspection during setup or particularly dangerous activities
3. Spot inspections to keep people honest. 

Something similar to the FDA grading thing would be useful, where the beef industry pays to have inspectors onsite to judge if the beef is prime/choice/select. etc.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cancer epidemic is a small price to pay for an economic boon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're supposed to wash your hands after using the restroom.  And you're supposed to shore up that coal mine and keep the coal dust to a minimum.  And you're supposed to have confidence in a nuclear power plant even if it's built on a seismic fault line.
> 
> And you're supposed to have sufficient funding for those inspectors to ensure hydraulic fracing is done safely.  Now, what's all this about cutting the government's budget?
Click to expand...




Sounds like you have chosen to learn how to chop wood.


----------



## Nosmo King

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does natural gas cause cancer?
> 
> If you are talking about the fracking fluids, yes they have to make sure they collect them properly when they reach back to the surface. they also have to make sure the well pipe liner is structurally sound.
> 
> Hydro fracking can be done safely if rules are followed. THATS the job of regulators, using regulations that are both conservative when it comes to safety, and reasonable when it comes to scope.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're supposed to wash your hands after using the restroom.  And you're supposed to shore up that coal mine and keep the coal dust to a minimum.  And you're supposed to have confidence in a nuclear power plant even if it's built on a seismic fault line.
> 
> And you're supposed to have sufficient funding for those inspectors to ensure hydraulic fracing is done safely.  Now, what's all this about cutting the government's budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the rules were simpler they would require less money to enforce, as you wouldnt need a team of government lawyers to interpret each one. Compliance can be determined from:
> 
> 1. approval of drawings
> 2. Inspection during setup or particularly dangerous activities
> 3. Spot inspections to keep people honest.
> 
> Something similar to the FDA grading thing would be useful, where the beef industry pays to have inspectors onsite to judge if the beef is prime/choice/select. etc.
Click to expand...

I was the resident inspector for construction projects and hazardous waste abatement projects for twenty years.  Believe me when I say that some contractors can be trusted to accomplish a task safely and on budget while others cannot be trusted to store bowling balls in their warehouse, let alone remove a leaking underground storage tank, abate asbestos-containing building materials, clear the soil of PCBs or conduct hydraulic fracturing operations.  

A set of rules you can scribble on a post-it note won't suffice!


----------



## martybegan

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're supposed to wash your hands after using the restroom.  And you're supposed to shore up that coal mine and keep the coal dust to a minimum.  And you're supposed to have confidence in a nuclear power plant even if it's built on a seismic fault line.
> 
> And you're supposed to have sufficient funding for those inspectors to ensure hydraulic fracing is done safely.  Now, what's all this about cutting the government's budget?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the rules were simpler they would require less money to enforce, as you wouldnt need a team of government lawyers to interpret each one. Compliance can be determined from:
> 
> 1. approval of drawings
> 2. Inspection during setup or particularly dangerous activities
> 3. Spot inspections to keep people honest.
> 
> Something similar to the FDA grading thing would be useful, where the beef industry pays to have inspectors onsite to judge if the beef is prime/choice/select. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the resident inspector for construction projects and hazardous waste abatement projects for twenty years.  Believe me when I say that some contractors can be trusted to accomplish a task safely and on budget while others cannot be trusted to store bowling balls in their warehouse, let alone remove a leaking underground storage tank, abate asbestos-containing building materials, clear the soil of PCBs or conduct hydraulic fracturing operations.
> 
> A set of rules you can scribble on a post-it note won't suffice!
Click to expand...


I have a background in engineering, with a specialization in wastewater treatment, including design, construction, and operations/control. right now I run construction so I am familiar with contractor quality. 

The problems we have today are with the system we have today, so obviously there is a problem. And just as you cannot use a post it note for proper regulation, a 1500 page guide that spends 1200 pages covering how you report it, 200 pages on who to report it to, and only 100 pages on what the hell you are supposed to be doing is not the right way either.


----------



## manifold

'Frack' means 'Fuck' on Battlestar Galactica.

Coincidence?


----------



## Two Thumbs

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the rules were simpler they would require less money to enforce, as you wouldnt need a team of government lawyers to interpret each one. Compliance can be determined from:
> 
> 1. approval of drawings
> 2. Inspection during setup or particularly dangerous activities
> 3. Spot inspections to keep people honest.
> 
> Something similar to the FDA grading thing would be useful, where the beef industry pays to have inspectors onsite to judge if the beef is prime/choice/select. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I was the resident inspector for construction projects and hazardous waste abatement projects for twenty years.  Believe me when I say that some contractors can be trusted to accomplish a task safely and on budget while others cannot be trusted to store bowling balls in their warehouse, let alone remove a leaking underground storage tank, abate asbestos-containing building materials, clear the soil of PCBs or conduct hydraulic fracturing operations.
> 
> A set of rules you can scribble on a post-it note won't suffice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a background in engineering, with a specialization in wastewater treatment, including design, construction, and operations/control. right now I run construction so I am familiar with contractor quality.
> 
> The problems we have today are with the system we have today, so obviously there is a problem. And just as you cannot use a post it note for proper regulation, a 1500 page guide that spends 1200 pages covering how you report it, 200 pages on who to report it to, and only 100 pages on what the hell you are supposed to be doing is not the right way either.
Click to expand...


kewl, 2 people that have some near first hand knowledge.

Nosmo, it's not about throwing out the book, no ones fool enough to do that []
However the book gets over bearing.

It takes 30+ years to open a nuke plant, so no one bothers b/c it takes to long to start earning money let alone turn a profit.

ever hear of OSHA?  These goons patroled the Navy for anything that may be wrong, and when they didn't find anything, or not enough, they hounded the crews.

I was on the USS Orion.  a very old sub repair ship, that was getting ready for decomissioning.  But for some reason OSHA wanted to inspect it.  One very new shipmate, spilled a bucket of grease.  He followed all the rules as best that he could and those around him could.  While he was cleaning, an inspecter came by and asked him if he was done with that rag. [he had filled it and set it next to him]  He said yes.

bam

$275,000 fine for not properly disposing of the oily rag.

Why were we really fined?  Power.  The inspector had the power and power corrupts.


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was the resident inspector for construction projects and hazardous waste abatement projects for twenty years.  Believe me when I say that some contractors can be trusted to accomplish a task safely and on budget while others cannot be trusted to store bowling balls in their warehouse, let alone remove a leaking underground storage tank, abate asbestos-containing building materials, clear the soil of PCBs or conduct hydraulic fracturing operations.
> 
> A set of rules you can scribble on a post-it note won't suffice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a background in engineering, with a specialization in wastewater treatment, including design, construction, and operations/control. right now I run construction so I am familiar with contractor quality.
> 
> The problems we have today are with the system we have today, so obviously there is a problem. And just as you cannot use a post it note for proper regulation, a 1500 page guide that spends 1200 pages covering how you report it, 200 pages on who to report it to, and only 100 pages on what the hell you are supposed to be doing is not the right way either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kewl, 2 people that have some near first hand knowledge.
> 
> Nosmo, it's not about throwing out the book, no ones fool enough to do that []
> However the book gets over bearing.
> 
> It takes 30+ years to open a nuke plant, so no one bothers b/c it takes to long to start earning money let alone turn a profit.
> 
> ever hear of OSHA?  These goons patroled the Navy for anything that may be wrong, and when they didn't find anything, or not enough, they hounded the crews.
> 
> I was on the USS Orion.  a very old sub repair ship, that was getting ready for decomissioning.  But for some reason OSHA wanted to inspect it.  One very new shipmate, spilled a bucket of grease.  He followed all the rules as best that he could and those around him could.  While he was cleaning, an inspecter came by and asked him if he was done with that rag. [he had filled it and set it next to him]  He said yes.
> 
> bam
> 
> $275,000 fine for not properly disposing of the oily rag.
> 
> Why were we really fined?  Power.  The inspector had the power and power corrupts.
Click to expand...

A couple of points, thumbs.  And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag.  And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry.  The EPA regulates government workplaces.

I know no one wants to throw out the book.  But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place?  For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials.  But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials.  NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does.  In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm).  But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.

Profit trumps science.  Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a background in engineering, with a specialization in wastewater treatment, including design, construction, and operations/control. right now I run construction so I am familiar with contractor quality.
> 
> The problems we have today are with the system we have today, so obviously there is a problem. And just as you cannot use a post it note for proper regulation, a 1500 page guide that spends 1200 pages covering how you report it, 200 pages on who to report it to, and only 100 pages on what the hell you are supposed to be doing is not the right way either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kewl, 2 people that have some near first hand knowledge.
> 
> Nosmo, it's not about throwing out the book, no ones fool enough to do that []
> However the book gets over bearing.
> 
> It takes 30+ years to open a nuke plant, so no one bothers b/c it takes to long to start earning money let alone turn a profit.
> 
> ever hear of OSHA?  These goons patroled the Navy for anything that may be wrong, and when they didn't find anything, or not enough, they hounded the crews.
> 
> I was on the USS Orion.  a very old sub repair ship, that was getting ready for decomissioning.  But for some reason OSHA wanted to inspect it.  One very new shipmate, spilled a bucket of grease.  He followed all the rules as best that he could and those around him could.  While he was cleaning, an inspecter came by and asked him if he was done with that rag. [he had filled it and set it next to him]  He said yes.
> 
> bam
> 
> $275,000 fine for not properly disposing of the oily rag.
> 
> Why were we really fined?  Power.  The inspector had the power and power corrupts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple of points, thumbs.  And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, *but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag.  And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry.  The EPA regulates government workplaces.*
> 
> I know no one wants to throw out the book.  But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place?  For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials.  But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials.  NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does.  In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm).  But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.
> 
> Profit trumps science.  Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.
Click to expand...


*when I heard it, I thought is was scuttle butt [rumor].  A stroy getting better each time it's told.  Then we had to have training on use and disposal of oily rags and how to respond to inspectors.  this occured early-mid 90's, so I may have the alphabet Dept wrong.*

Don't get me wrong, I understand profit over people occurs, and w/o regs it would happen more often.  I've met guys that would rather smell the fumes or get burned a little than wear safety gear.

There has to be a middle ground.

And right now I'd say we are over regualted to the point it's hurting business, and thus jobs and the economy.


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> kewl, 2 people that have some near first hand knowledge.
> 
> Nosmo, it's not about throwing out the book, no ones fool enough to do that []
> However the book gets over bearing.
> 
> It takes 30+ years to open a nuke plant, so no one bothers b/c it takes to long to start earning money let alone turn a profit.
> 
> ever hear of OSHA?  These goons patroled the Navy for anything that may be wrong, and when they didn't find anything, or not enough, they hounded the crews.
> 
> I was on the USS Orion.  a very old sub repair ship, that was getting ready for decomissioning.  But for some reason OSHA wanted to inspect it.  One very new shipmate, spilled a bucket of grease.  He followed all the rules as best that he could and those around him could.  While he was cleaning, an inspecter came by and asked him if he was done with that rag. [he had filled it and set it next to him]  He said yes.
> 
> bam
> 
> $275,000 fine for not properly disposing of the oily rag.
> 
> Why were we really fined?  Power.  The inspector had the power and power corrupts.
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of points, thumbs.  And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, *but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag.  And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry.  The EPA regulates government workplaces.*
> 
> I know no one wants to throw out the book.  But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place?  For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials.  But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials.  NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does.  In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm).  But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.
> 
> Profit trumps science.  Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *when I heard it, I thought is was scuttle butt [rumor].  A stroy getting better each time it's told.  Then we had to have training on use and disposal of oily rags and how to respond to inspectors.  this occured early-mid 90's, so I may have the alphabet Dept wrong.*
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I understand profit over people occurs, and w/o regs it would happen more often.  I've met guys that would rather smell the fumes or get burned a little than wear safety gear.
> 
> There has to be a middle ground.
> 
> And right now I'd say we are over regualted to the point it's hurting business, and thus jobs and the economy.
Click to expand...

The natural gas industry is in a dither trying to get mineral rights secured and as many gas wells set as possible here in upper Appalachia before the public gets testy.  I would love to see us extract the gas from our own deposits.  I would love to see many parts of transportation convert to natural gas rather than gasoline.  

But, if extracting that gas means that the aquifer gets damaged or the quality of life for those living near the well head suffers or the infrastructure (our roads and bridges) gets damaged as a result of all that drilling activity, I do think it's prudent to take a beat and decide what's the bigger priority: cheap fuel or the damage acquiring it makes.

It's an easy decision for those not directly impacted by the damage.  Why, give us cheap fuel?  Drill baby, drill!  Those folks don't live here.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of points, thumbs.  And I'm not refudiating (thanks, Sarah!) your story, *but I've got to believe there's more to it than $275,000 for one oily rag.  And, not to get technical, but OSHA sets regulations for private industry.  The EPA regulates government workplaces.*
> 
> I know no one wants to throw out the book.  But, ask yourself, how does the book get written in the first place?  For instance, OSHA sets regulations for exposure limits to hazardous and toxic materials.  But OSHA doesn't do the research on those materials.  NIOSH (National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health) does.  In many many instances, a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (usually fifteen minutes or so) can be established by NIOSH at, for instance 15 parts per million (ppm).  But by the time industry lobbyists get through the public comment portion of a hearing, that STEL can be two or three times higher than the NIOSH recommendation.
> 
> Profit trumps science.  Then the science is castigated by partisans as "junk science" and the public debate gets muddled in a political squabble rather than sound scientific findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *when I heard it, I thought is was scuttle butt [rumor].  A stroy getting better each time it's told.  Then we had to have training on use and disposal of oily rags and how to respond to inspectors.  this occured early-mid 90's, so I may have the alphabet Dept wrong.*
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I understand profit over people occurs, and w/o regs it would happen more often.  I've met guys that would rather smell the fumes or get burned a little than wear safety gear.
> 
> There has to be a middle ground.
> 
> And right now I'd say we are over regualted to the point it's hurting business, and thus jobs and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The natural gas industry is in a dither trying to get mineral rights secured and as many gas wells set as possible here in upper Appalachia before the public gets testy.  I would love to see us extract the gas from our own deposits.  I would love to see many parts of transportation convert to natural gas rather than gasoline.
> 
> But, if extracting that gas means that the aquifer gets damaged or the quality of life for those living near the well head suffers or the infrastructure (our roads and bridges) gets damaged as a result of all that drilling activity, I do think it's prudent to take a beat and decide what's the bigger priority: cheap fuel or the damage acquiring it makes.
> 
> It's an easy decision for those not directly impacted by the damage.  Why, give us cheap fuel?  Drill baby, drill!  Those folks don't live here.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah.  If it proves to do harm, actual harm, then we will have to move on.  However, if it is minor, and I live in PA where this drilling is going on, then we will have to learn to deal with.

or

embrace nuclear or learn to chop wood.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Ignited the fracking fluid from the well.  Now that sounds like the stuff is safe, right?*

ND oil well fire out; temporarily capped - BusinessWeek

It's back under control and no longer flaring," said Brent Collins, a spokesman for the well's owner, SM Energy Co. of Denver. "The fire is out."

Collins said well fire specialists from Houston-based Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. stopped the fire Friday morning and were rebuilding the wellhead that afternoon. The process could take several days, he said.

"The mechanical and structural integrity is still intact, and we will be able to reuse the well," Collins said.

The fire, eight miles north of Arnegard, started March 7. No one was hurt. Lynn Helms, the director of the state Department of Mineral Resources, has said a hot engine from a pump truck likely ignited hydraulic fracturing fluid from the well. McKenzie County Sheriff Ron Rankin said flames from the well roiled up to 80 feet in the air.

Well fire specialists and equipment from Boots & Coots, which is now owned by oil services company Halliburton Co., have been on scene since last week. But the company, which has helped douse oil field fires from Nigeria to Kuwait, faced problems beyond a blown-out well: North Dakota's notoriously nasty weather.

Helms said a blizzard last week halted firefighting efforts for at least one day. The well site and roads leading to it then became mired with mud from warmer temperatures, forcing crews to dump gravel so machinery could get to the blaze, he said.

"The weather and blizzard was a major problem," Helms said. "They are used to working in all kinds of environments, but this was one that made work impossible."


----------



## Old Rocks

*15% to 80% of rather poisoness material recovered. So where does the rest end up? And if the chemicals show up in the aquifer years after the recovery of oil and gas is done, then who do the people in the community turn to?*

The Fracturing War Rages On

Unfortunately, heated arguments in the hydraulic fracturing debate haven't eased in the slightest.

Both sides refuse to let-up.

As you know, hydraulic fracturing is the dominant method being used to extract oil and gas from those shale formations. The process involves injecting the geologic formation with fluid, 99% of which is composed of sand and water. The fluid fractures the rock, allowing the resource to flow freely. Sand or ceramic proppant is used to keep the fractures open.

By now, you probably realize most people don't take issue with the water or the sand part of the equation. Their problem is with less than 1% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid being used in the procedure. That cocktail of chemicals used by companies can be deadly if it gets into our drinking water.

And remember that only about 15-80% of the fluids injected into the well are recovered.However, you should always step back and look at both sides of the fence before jumping on board.

Even the eye-catching documentary Gasland, which painted a gruesome picture of an industry laden with guilt concerning groundwater contamination, is not above scrutiny.


----------



## Old Rocks

A scientific study published by the National Academy of Science;


Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing - ProPublica

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking - ProPublica

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

The peer-reviewed study [1], published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate [2] over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks [3].


The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Old Rocks said:


> A scientific study published by the National Academy of Science;
> 
> 
> Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing - ProPublica
> 
> Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking - ProPublica
> 
> For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.
> 
> The peer-reviewed study [1], published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate [2] over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks [3].
> 
> 
> The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.



Thanks

also from your link

The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion.

Seems like this is a very fixable issue


----------



## manifold

Two Thumbs said:


> Seems like this is a very fixable issue



Exactly.

The free market will work it out.  As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued.  And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.

I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.


----------



## RGR

Two Thumbs said:


> Seems like this is a very fixable issue



It is. People have been doing it for better than a century, those who live near and around coal mines. You let the water sit in a tank at atmospheric pressure prior to pumping it into the house. It degases right there outside where it doesn't bother anyone.

Back in the 70's we just drank the stuff, called it fizzy water. 

And the article uses the difference between thermogenic and biogenic gas to "prove" something about hydraulic fracturing. Bullshit. Thermogenic gas is also common in shales, such as those in Pennsylvania, at shallow depths, like those people drill into for their water wells. Presto. Thermogenic gas in drinking water, and not a well in sight.


----------



## Two Thumbs

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like this is a very fixable issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The free market will work it out.  As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued.  And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.
> 
> I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.
Click to expand...


die from drinking water?

There's in not a single death from drinking tap water in America.


----------



## Father Time

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like this is a very fixable issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The free market will work it out.  As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued.  And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.
> 
> I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.
Click to expand...


It is difficult for an individual to take on a large company's team of lawyers.


----------



## manifold

Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Father Time said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like this is a very fixable issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The free market will work it out.  As more and more people die, the companies will continue to get sued.  And as the lawsuits grow, the profitablity will decline and eventually it won't be economically viable anymore.
> 
> I just don't understand what anyone could ever find objectionable about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is difficult for an individual to take on a large company's team of lawyers.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

Ever hear of class action suits?

Lawyers get paid upto 40% if they win and nothing if they lose.


----------



## Two Thumbs

manifold said:


> Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.



Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.

Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.


----------



## manifold

Two Thumbs said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.
> 
> Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.
Click to expand...


fracking and cancer - Google Search


----------



## martybegan

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.
> 
> Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fracking and cancer - Google Search
Click to expand...


Get some lawyer advertisements (suprise suprise) and a few posts on "possible" links to cancer and fracking, none of them very "science-y".

The tricky thing with cancer and chemical exposure is that you cannot directly correlate concentration, exposure duration, route and location with a definitive "yes X amount causes you cancer"  It is all based upon risk assesment.

Toxicity risks are far easier to determine, such as LD-50's (lethal dose 50%) and IDLH (Immidiate danger to life and health). You get up to "concentration X" and you are in big trouble.


----------



## Two Thumbs

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure TT, nobody ever died from cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your best to link drinking water to cancer.
> 
> Please, I would love to see this, since I would then buy as much stock in bottled water I could then take this best kept secret to the media and make a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fracking and cancer - Google Search
Click to expand...


Going through a bunch of those, for you, I have found no proof.

again.


----------



## flacaltenn

My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..

HOWEVER, I believe the companies SHOULD disclose exactly what they are using. Just to keep this a fair game. You can't go dumping "secret crap" into the ground. 

 Then frack baby frack.

 It's the only point made in that "Oscar Nominated" P.O.S. that made sense. 

How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well!  But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.

PS. Now that we know what it takes to get a documentary Oscar Nominated, why don't some of us "skeptical trogs" beat them at their own game..


----------



## RGR

flacaltenn said:


> My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..



As a frac engineer back in the 90's, let me rat out the proprietary nature of the chemicals I used. Lots of water. Some sand. A coupld gallons of surfactant, and a biocide to treat the water in the tanks. Not a hydrocarbon in sight.

<sigh>

I will probably now be sued by the Professional Organization of Fracing Engineers for revealing the secrets of our profession.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well!  But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.



Methane is odorless. The odor that some people associate with it is generally from the odorizing agent that pipeline companies use in the natural gas stream so you can actually smell it if it is leaking out somewhere.


----------



## Two Thumbs

flacaltenn said:


> My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..
> 
> HOWEVER, I believe the companies SHOULD disclose exactly what they are using. Just to keep this a fair game. You can't go dumping "secret crap" into the ground.
> 
> Then frack baby frack.
> 
> It's the only point made in that "Oscar Nominated" P.O.S. that made sense.
> 
> How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well!  But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.
> 
> PS. Now that we know what it takes to get a documentary Oscar Nominated, why don't some of us "skeptical trogs" beat them at their own game..



The reason no company will expoase what they use, in any detail, is b/c it's thier own special mix and don't want the competition to know what they are using.

Just like Coke and KFC.


Well water always had this nasty taste to it [for me].  Wonder if it was the methane.


----------



## Two Thumbs

RGR said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My impression from that "Gaslands" hit piece was that "fracking fluids" are proprietary. Therefore the companies will not disclose what EXACTLY they are using. But Generally suspected to be BTEX type hydrocarbons. These are the exact same hydrocarbon type compounds that you find naturally occuring in the Nat Gas deposits. It's like pissing into a sewer..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a frac engineer back in the 90's, let me rat out the proprietary nature of the chemicals I used. Lots of water. Some sand. A coupld gallons of *surfactant*, and a biocide to treat the water in the tanks. Not a hydrocarbon in sight.
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> I will probably now be sued by the Professional Organization of Fracing Engineers for revealing the secrets of our profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How surprising is it really that your water smells like methane? YOU LIVE over a HUGE natural gas deposit and take water from your well!  But I don't want methane carbonated seltzer. I'll stick with the enviromentally neutral CO2 type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methane is odorless. The odor that some people associate with it is generally from the odorizing agent that pipeline companies use in the natural gas stream so you can actually smell it if it is leaking out somewhere.
Click to expand...


What's that?


----------



## strollingbones

someone should beat you with a stick....water is more important than oil...the fights over water will begin sooner than later

fracking kills water tables


----------



## Two Thumbs

strollingbones said:


> someone should beat you with a stick....water is more important than oil...the fights over water will begin sooner than later
> 
> *fracking kills water tables*



Got any proof?

and no links to that movie please.  It's been debunked already


----------



## Old Rocks

But the money made by the 'frackin' goes back to the billionaires on wall street. It is just the local yokels that drink the water. Hell, they will probably like the flavor added by the chemicals.


----------



## Old Rocks

No, the movie has not been debunked. The NAS article stated quite clearly that the aquifers were being contaminated in many places.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Old Rocks said:


> No, the movie has not been debunked. The NAS article stated quite clearly that the aquifers were being contaminated in many places.



Actually it has.

It never proved anything, it simply implied, and people assumed it to be proof.

Debunked due to lack of proof.

you're wrong, I've asked again and again for proof and you have all failed, each and every time.

Hell I even did some searching and came up with nothing.

So quit lying and admit you hate it b/c the money goes to BIG EVUL OIL.  And has nothing to do with anything else.


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the movie has not been debunked. The NAS article stated quite clearly that the aquifers were being contaminated in many places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it has.
> 
> It never proved anything, it simply implied, and people assumed it to be proof.
> 
> Debunked due to lack of proof.
> 
> you're wrong, I've asked again and again for proof and you have all failed, each and every time.
> 
> Hell I even did some searching and came up with nothing.
> 
> So quit lying and admit you hate it b/c the money goes to BIG EVUL OIL.  And has nothing to do with anything else.
Click to expand...

Concerns about fracing have little or nothing to do with concerns about the growing wealth of oil companies.  The concerns are about the health and safety of the people adversely effected by improper drilling techniques.  Health and safety trumps profits.  So, the concerns voiced are genuine and really need to be addressed responsibly.  Further dividing people with innuendo and lies is not a responsible means of addressing their valid concerns.

Aquifers are more important than natural gas reserves.  You don't need natural gas to live on the planet, but you need water!


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the movie has not been debunked. The NAS article stated quite clearly that the aquifers were being contaminated in many places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it has.
> 
> It never proved anything, it simply implied, and people assumed it to be proof.
> 
> Debunked due to lack of proof.
> 
> you're wrong, I've asked again and again for proof and you have all failed, each and every time.
> 
> Hell I even did some searching and came up with nothing.
> 
> So quit lying and admit you hate it b/c the money goes to BIG EVUL OIL.  And has nothing to do with anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concerns about fracing have little or nothing to do with concerns about the growing wealth of oil companies.  The concerns are about the health and safety of the people adversely effected by improper drilling techniques.  Health and safety trumps profits.  So, the concerns voiced are genuine and really need to be addressed responsibly.  Further dividing people with innuendo and lies is not a responsible means of addressing their valid concerns.
> 
> Aquifers are more important than natural gas reserves.  You don't need natural gas to live on the planet, but you need water!
Click to expand...


these "valid concerns" are based on nothing more than assumption.

Seriously, I have looked and looked for anyone saying fracking DOES this of that.

All I've ever found is "suggest", "Implies".

Going after an industry based on that is wrong, and doesn't do anything except make people feel good that they stuck it to the man.

fyi;  water pumps are need fuel to run.  So unless you want to learn to haul water...


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it has.
> 
> It never proved anything, it simply implied, and people assumed it to be proof.
> 
> Debunked due to lack of proof.
> 
> you're wrong, I've asked again and again for proof and you have all failed, each and every time.
> 
> Hell I even did some searching and came up with nothing.
> 
> So quit lying and admit you hate it b/c the money goes to BIG EVUL OIL.  And has nothing to do with anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Concerns about fracing have little or nothing to do with concerns about the growing wealth of oil companies.  The concerns are about the health and safety of the people adversely effected by improper drilling techniques.  Health and safety trumps profits.  So, the concerns voiced are genuine and really need to be addressed responsibly.  Further dividing people with innuendo and lies is not a responsible means of addressing their valid concerns.
> 
> Aquifers are more important than natural gas reserves.  You don't need natural gas to live on the planet, but you need water!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these "valid concerns" are based on nothing more than assumption.
> 
> Seriously, I have looked and looked for anyone saying fracking DOES this of that.
> 
> All I've ever found is "suggest", "Implies".
> 
> Going after an industry based on that is wrong, and doesn't do anything except make people feel good that they stuck it to the man.
> 
> fyi;  water pumps are need fuel to run.  So unless you want to learn to haul water...
Click to expand...

I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?

But if your neighbor's well goes dry, if the aquifer is polluted, if the fracing fluids are far from benign, then we've got some real problems.  And those problems go beyond the credibility issues the gas company might have.

And I gotta wonder how that water came up out of the ground before a power pump?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerns about fracing have little or nothing to do with concerns about the growing wealth of oil companies.  The concerns are about the health and safety of the people adversely effected by improper drilling techniques.  Health and safety trumps profits.  So, the concerns voiced are genuine and really need to be addressed responsibly.  Further dividing people with innuendo and lies is not a responsible means of addressing their valid concerns.
> 
> Aquifers are more important than natural gas reserves.  You don't need natural gas to live on the planet, but you need water!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these "valid concerns" are based on nothing more than assumption.
> 
> Seriously, I have looked and looked for anyone saying fracking DOES this of that.
> 
> All I've ever found is "suggest", "Implies".
> 
> Going after an industry based on that is wrong, and doesn't do anything except make people feel good that they stuck it to the man.
> 
> fyi;  water pumps are need fuel to run.  So unless you want to learn to haul water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?
> 
> But if your neighbor's well goes dry, if the aquifer is polluted, if the fracing fluids are far from benign, then we've got some real problems.  And those problems go beyond the credibility issues the gas company might have.
> 
> And I gotta wonder how that water came up out of the ground before a power pump?
Click to expand...


You want a windmill attached to every home?  I would work, when the wind was blowing.  When not?  well, it may solve our fat people issue as everyone will go to hand pumps 

but no, I didn't check a single oil company site.  I checked dozens of sites that made claims fracking was evuhl, and found none of them had anything more than assumption.

But they used it very very well.

People that live near fracking sites have more methane in thier water!!!!!

OHH NOOESSS  It must be the evul driller and frackers!!!

or

It's always been like that and the frackers and drillers are going where the best sources are.

But lets not assume that.

fyi;  methane is not harmfull to consume and no frackeing fluid has been found in peoples water.  Thus confirming, to me, that the high methane content was there before the fracking began or there would also be some chemical residue.

p.s.  I live in NE PA were much of this is being done.


----------



## chikenwing

rdean said:


> Yea, good news!
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;GasLand Fire in your sink pt 1&#x202c;&rlm;




Pure propaganda,people have had gas in their water since we started digging wells,I would love to be paid again for every degassing system I have installed in local wells,central NY and northern Pa,this is common as dirt.

You don't want to drill for more gas,no problem,but we will shut your supply off,its only fair right??!!!


----------



## RGR

Two Thumbs said:


> The reason no company will expoase what they use, in any detail, is b/c it's thier own special mix and don't want the competition to know what they are using.



I already exposed the secret formula. Of my own design even, very company specific hush-hush. People getting their panties in a twist over this strikes me as nothing short of hysterical.


----------



## RGR

strollingbones said:


> someone should beat you with a stick....water is more important than oil...the fights over water will begin sooner than later
> 
> fracking kills water tables



Since when? Short of a run of the mill design failure, I'm betting you don't even know how many layers of steel and concrete a frac has to get through to even get to a water table, particularly without someone noticing and fixing it first.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> But the money made by the 'frackin' goes back to the billionaires on wall street. It is just the local yokels that drink the water. Hell, they will probably like the flavor added by the chemicals.



Never heard of the 1/8th the landowner gets? Are they all wall street people who own that land in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and New York?


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> No, the movie has not been debunked. The NAS article stated quite clearly that the aquifers were being contaminated in many places.



Oh. That is all the scientific evidence required nowadays? Cool...how's this for an example why thats a load of crap.

Let me state, quite clearly, that the moon is made of green cheese.

There. I did state it quite clearly, so it must be true.


----------



## RGR

Nosmo King said:


> Concerns about fracing have little or nothing to do with concerns about the growing wealth of oil companies.  The concerns are about the health and safety of the people adversely effected by improper drilling techniques.



Name a single improper drilling technique. Just one. 




			
				Nosmo said:
			
		

> Aquifers are more important than natural gas reserves.  You don't need natural gas to live on the planet, but you need water!



Good thing that proper drilling techniques are used in acquiring the natural gas then.


----------



## RGR

Nosmo King said:


> I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?



Don't like websites? Fine...ask me. I spent time in the 80's and 90's drilling, completing, recompleting, fracing and producing oil and gas wells. Every technique I used for all of those activities was industry standard except one, and I ran off the service rig which did it. I don't need a website to know safe drilling practices, and certainly someone ignorant enough to think that reading a website will impart knowledge on any particular of this topic is delusional.


----------



## chikenwing

strollingbones said:


> someone should beat you with a stick....water is more important than oil...the fights over water will begin sooner than later
> 
> fracking kills water tables




Really?? where did ya get that info?


----------



## chikenwing

No drill no gas

Its that simple.


----------



## Nosmo King

RGR said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like websites? Fine...ask me. I spent time in the 80's and 90's drilling, completing, recompleting, fracing and producing oil and gas wells. Every technique I used for all of those activities was industry standard except one, and I ran off the service rig which did it. I don't need a website to know safe drilling practices, and certainly someone ignorant enough to think that reading a website will impart knowledge on any particular of this topic is delusional.
Click to expand...

My career has been Environmental engineering.  I have monitored air, water, soil, stack emissions and toxic and hazardous waste since 1984.  I know something about contractors, industry lobbyists, state and federal regulators and the regulations they promulgate.  I also live in the heart of the Marcellus Shale deposits right where Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia meet.  The issue is both wholly comprehensible by me and local to me.  

The utter lack of regulatory oversight scares the bejeebus out of me.  Infrastructure demands, particularly on small, often one lane rural bridges should have been met BEFORE the invasion of drill rigs and the convoy of heavy equipment and trucks.

And, in Pennsylvania for now, those infrastructure demands must be borne by the county township or state.  There's no extraction tax imposed to pay for the infrastructure improvements!

Rural wells and small municipal water supplies are at jeopardy because there's not enough in the state's treasuries to pay inspectors and technicians.  

While exploiting the natural gas would be a great thing for our energy outlook, there's been very little care taken to protect the environment and the people who staked their claim to the ground before the energy companies staked claim to the stuff beneath it.

No one's looking to cripple the gas industry, drive away many very needed jobs or bankrupt our national energy security.  But people trump profit.  Homes beats Executive Suites.  It's high time to be careful and thoughtful when an industry invades farmlands.


----------



## chikenwing

Nosmo King said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like websites? Fine...ask me. I spent time in the 80's and 90's drilling, completing, recompleting, fracing and producing oil and gas wells. Every technique I used for all of those activities was industry standard except one, and I ran off the service rig which did it. I don't need a website to know safe drilling practices, and certainly someone ignorant enough to think that reading a website will impart knowledge on any particular of this topic is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My career has been Environmental engineering.  I have monitored air, water, soil, stack emissions and toxic and hazardous waste since 1984.  I know something about contractors, industry lobbyists, state and federal regulators and the regulations they promulgate.  I also live in the heart of the Marcellus Shale deposits right where Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia meet.  The issue is both wholly comprehensible by me and local to me.
> 
> The utter lack of regulatory oversight scares the bejeebus out of me.  Infrastructure demands, particularly on small, often one lane rural bridges should have been met BEFORE the invasion of drill rigs and the convoy of heavy equipment and trucks.
> 
> And, in Pennsylvania for now, those infrastructure demands must be borne by the county township or state.  There's no extraction tax imposed to pay for the infrastructure improvements!
> 
> Rural wells and small municipal water supplies are at jeopardy because there's not enough in the state's treasuries to pay inspectors and technicians.
> 
> While exploiting the natural gas would be a great thing for our energy outlook, there's been very little care taken to protect the environment and the people who staked their claim to the ground before the energy companies staked claim to the stuff beneath it.
> 
> No one's looking to cripple the gas industry, drive away many very needed jobs or bankrupt our national energy security.  But people trump profit.  Homes beats Executive Suites.  It's high time to be careful and thoughtful when an industry invades farmlands.
Click to expand...


The roads are being repaired by the gas and trucking company's at leat in NE pa they are,

and stating there has been very little care is just so not true.


----------



## RGR

Nosmo King said:


> No one's looking to cripple the gas industry, drive away many very needed jobs or bankrupt our national energy security.  But people trump profit.  Homes beats Executive Suites.  It's high time to be careful and thoughtful when an industry invades farmlands.



Seems like a reasonable comment to me. You do realize that the problems which seem to draw the most negative attention on this topic are all legal. I think that more than anything else is what really ticks off the anti's.

I recommend updating the oil and gas regs to better handle the modern technology used to get the natural gas out of the ground. Update the water disposal laws as well. All the angst pointed at the gas producers strikes me as based on a poor understanding of the issues involved, and where the changes need to be made.


----------



## martybegan

chikenwing said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like websites? Fine...ask me. I spent time in the 80's and 90's drilling, completing, recompleting, fracing and producing oil and gas wells. Every technique I used for all of those activities was industry standard except one, and I ran off the service rig which did it. I don't need a website to know safe drilling practices, and certainly someone ignorant enough to think that reading a website will impart knowledge on any particular of this topic is delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> My career has been Environmental engineering.  I have monitored air, water, soil, stack emissions and toxic and hazardous waste since 1984.  I know something about contractors, industry lobbyists, state and federal regulators and the regulations they promulgate.  I also live in the heart of the Marcellus Shale deposits right where Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia meet.  The issue is both wholly comprehensible by me and local to me.
> 
> The utter lack of regulatory oversight scares the bejeebus out of me.  Infrastructure demands, particularly on small, often one lane rural bridges should have been met BEFORE the invasion of drill rigs and the convoy of heavy equipment and trucks.
> 
> And, in Pennsylvania for now, those infrastructure demands must be borne by the county township or state.  There's no extraction tax imposed to pay for the infrastructure improvements!
> 
> Rural wells and small municipal water supplies are at jeopardy because there's not enough in the state's treasuries to pay inspectors and technicians.
> 
> While exploiting the natural gas would be a great thing for our energy outlook, there's been very little care taken to protect the environment and the people who staked their claim to the ground before the energy companies staked claim to the stuff beneath it.
> 
> No one's looking to cripple the gas industry, drive away many very needed jobs or bankrupt our national energy security.  But people trump profit.  Homes beats Executive Suites.  It's high time to be careful and thoughtful when an industry invades farmlands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The roads are being repaired by the gas and trucking company's at leat in NE pa they are,
> 
> and stating there has been very little care is just so not true.
Click to expand...


Watch out, Oldsalt may call you out for making up your degree, like he did to me.

The issue isn't about farmlands, its about aquifers. its also about localities that can use the influx of cash. Also remember, don't you think a locality will increase its property value assesment of a plot that produces gas?  Municipalites make most of thier money off of property taxes. I also wouldnt be against the county in question imposing a extraction tax. everyone should make money off this. 

The care will come from regulations. I have never been against regulations, only ones that are desgined to be a de facto ban, and not actual controls on a given activity.


----------



## oldsalt

Nosmo King said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends where you look for your information.  If the oil and gas industry websites say their drilling techniques are safe, the it must be true!  Why would they lie about something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like websites? Fine...ask me. I spent time in the 80's and 90's drilling, completing, recompleting, fracing and producing oil and gas wells. Every technique I used for all of those activities was industry standard except one, and I ran off the service rig which did it. I don't need a website to know safe drilling practices, and certainly someone ignorant enough to think that reading a website will impart knowledge on any particular of this topic is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My career has been Environmental engineering.  I have monitored air, water, soil, stack emissions and toxic and hazardous waste since 1984.  I know something about contractors, industry lobbyists, state and federal regulators and the regulations they promulgate.  I also live in the heart of the Marcellus Shale deposits right where Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia meet.  The issue is both wholly comprehensible by me and local to me.
> 
> The utter lack of regulatory oversight scares the bejeebus out of me.  Infrastructure demands, particularly on small, often one lane rural bridges should have been met BEFORE the invasion of drill rigs and the convoy of heavy equipment and trucks.
> 
> And, in Pennsylvania for now, those infrastructure demands must be borne by the county township or state.  There's no extraction tax imposed to pay for the infrastructure improvements!
> 
> Rural wells and small municipal water supplies are at jeopardy because there's not enough in the state's treasuries to pay inspectors and technicians.
> 
> While exploiting the natural gas would be a great thing for our energy outlook, there's been very little care taken to protect the environment and the people who staked their claim to the ground before the energy companies staked claim to the stuff beneath it.
> 
> No one's looking to cripple the gas industry, drive away many very needed jobs or bankrupt our national energy security.  But people trump profit.  Homes beats Executive Suites.  It's high time to be careful and thoughtful when an industry invades farmlands.
Click to expand...


Great post.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.



It's not that I would have a problem with REGULATED fracking... but... is it so much to ask that we do things responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way?



> Environmental Working Group has documented illegal practices, the use of toxic chemicals and water contamination that is apparently linked to fracking.
> 
> Unless high volume fracking and drilling is barred near drinking water sources and carefully regulated elsewhere, gas production will pose an expanding threat to homes, property values and water supplies.
> 
> It's critical that policymakers and environmental watchdogs close federal exemptions and intensify federal and state scrutiny to avert serious environmental damage as the pace of fracking accelerates.



What you need to know about fracking | Environmental Working Group


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I would have a problem with REGULATED fracking... but... is it so much to ask that we do things responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmental Working Group has documented illegal practices, the use of toxic chemicals and water contamination that is apparently linked to fracking.
> 
> Unless high volume fracking and drilling is barred near drinking water sources and carefully regulated elsewhere, gas production will pose an expanding threat to homes, property values and water supplies.
> 
> It's critical that policymakers and environmental watchdogs close federal exemptions and intensify federal and state scrutiny to avert serious environmental damage as the pace of fracking accelerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to know about fracking | Environmental Working Group
Click to expand...


Jillian,

I live in the fracking regions of PA.  So I looked and look for verified facts.  I ignored oil sites and pro-fracking sites. And I have found nothing to says fracking is bad b/c we proved it does .....

Sorry Jillian, it's just not there.

Fracking has been done for 60 years and over 1 million times.  The only thing that went wrong was a single water spill that kill the grass and 1/2 the trees in an area the size of a ball park.  And that was due to the salt, not the frack chemicals, in the water.

So it would seem to be the safest way to get fuel, b/c not even nuclear has such a clean record.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Texas enjoys major boom from oil fracking - Yahoo! News
> 
> You can't beat that with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I would have a problem with REGULATED fracking... but... is it so much to ask that we do things responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmental Working Group has documented illegal practices, the use of toxic chemicals and water contamination that is apparently linked to fracking.
> 
> Unless high volume fracking and drilling is barred near drinking water sources and carefully regulated elsewhere, gas production will pose an expanding threat to homes, property values and water supplies.
> 
> It's critical that policymakers and environmental watchdogs close federal exemptions and intensify federal and state scrutiny to avert serious environmental damage as the pace of fracking accelerates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to know about fracking | Environmental Working Group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian,
> 
> I live in the fracking regions of PA.  So I looked and look for verified facts.  I ignored oil sites and pro-fracking sites. And I have found nothing to says fracking is bad b/c we proved it does .....
> 
> Sorry Jillian, it's just not there.
> 
> Fracking has been done for 60 years and over 1 million times.  The only thing that went wrong was a single water spill that kill the grass and 1/2 the trees in an area the size of a ball park.  And that was due to the salt, not the frack chemicals, in the water.
> 
> So it would seem to be the safest way to get fuel, b/c not even nuclear has such a clean record.
Click to expand...


The record is there. You're choosing to ignore it, imo. And the fracking that was done over 60 years was not done on the scale proposed now. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't explore it. I'm not opposed to the concept. I want it regulated. I don't want to hear stories about people's water being set on fire. I don't think that's a particularly untenable position. What I DO think is untenable is not controlling the manner in which the fracking is done.

I'm also not going to say that the anecdotal evidenceis without questions. But those questions need to be explored, not ignored. I have a problem with the level of concern about economic impact of regulation because it's simply disingenuous, particularly given the record profits of the oil and gas industries. Environmental impact studies are done when a traffic light is put into a neighborhood or a stadium is built. Don't you think an appropriate response to this issue is to look into these questions IN ADVANCE of the impact and not after when these places become huge superfund sites?



> A Toxic Spew?
> Officials worry about impact of 'fracking' of oil and gas.
> (Page 1 of 2)
> Cathy Behr says she won't forget the smell that nearly killed her. An emergency-room nurse in Durango, Colo.'s Mercy Regional Medical Center, Behr was working the April 17 day shift when Clinton Marshall arrived complaining of nausea and headaches. An employee at an energy-services company, Weatherford International, Marshall, according to Behr, said that he was caught in a "fracturing-fluid" spill. [Fracturing chemicals are routinely used on oil and gas wells where they are pumped deep into the ground to crack rock seams and increase production.] The chemical stench coming off Marshall's boots was buckling, says Behr. Mercy officials took no chances. They evacuated and locked down the ER, and its staff was instructed to don protective masks and gowns. But by the time those precautions were enacted, Behr had been nursing Marshall for 10 minutes--unprotected. "I honestly thought the response was a little overkill, but good practice," says Behr, 54, a 20-year veteran at Mercy



Oil & Gas Exploration: Is


----------



## Two Thumbs

Q:  What research is EPA proposing to undertake, what results does EPA expect the research it conducts to provide, and when will the results be available?

A:  By 2012, EPA expects to have results from data analysis, modeling and retrospective case studies available to inform a preliminary assessment of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.   

 By 2014, we will have additional results from data analysis and modeling, as well as results from laboratory work and the prospective case studies to expand our assessment of impacts of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.  

While research is under way, if EPA finds results of urgent concern regarding public health or environmental impacts, particularly in evaluation of local situations, we will immediately notify the appropriate parties and begin action.

Questions and Answers About EPA&#39;s Hydraulic Fracturing Study | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA

The EPA has been at it for a year and have not informed us of any hazards.

Considering how anti-oil / pro-green the current admin is, I think this is very telling.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I would have a problem with REGULATED fracking... but... is it so much to ask that we do things responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way?
> 
> 
> 
> What you need to know about fracking | Environmental Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian,
> 
> I live in the fracking regions of PA.  So I looked and look for verified facts.  I ignored oil sites and pro-fracking sites. And I have found nothing to says fracking is bad b/c we proved it does .....
> 
> Sorry Jillian, it's just not there.
> 
> Fracking has been done for 60 years and over 1 million times.  The only thing that went wrong was a single water spill that kill the grass and 1/2 the trees in an area the size of a ball park.  And that was due to the salt, not the frack chemicals, in the water.
> 
> So it would seem to be the safest way to get fuel, b/c not even nuclear has such a clean record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The record is there. You're choosing to ignore it, imo. And the fracking that was done over 60 years was not done on the scale proposed now. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't explore it. I'm not opposed to the concept. I want it regulated. I don't want to hear stories about people's water being set on fire. I don't think that's a particularly untenable position. What I DO think is untenable is not controlling the manner in which the fracking is done.
> 
> I'm also not going to say that the anecdotal evidenceis without questions. But those questions need to be explored, not ignored. I have a problem with the level of concern about economic impact of regulation because it's simply disingenuous, particularly given the record profits of the oil and gas industries. Environmental impact studies are done when a traffic light is put into a neighborhood or a stadium is built. Don't you think an appropriate response to this issue is to look into these questions IN ADVANCE of the impact and not after when these places become huge superfund sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Toxic Spew?
> Officials worry about impact of 'fracking' of oil and gas.
> (Page 1 of 2)
> Cathy Behr says she won't forget the smell that nearly killed her. An emergency-room nurse in Durango, Colo.'s Mercy Regional Medical Center, Behr was working the April 17 day shift when Clinton Marshall arrived complaining of nausea and headaches. An employee at an energy-services company, Weatherford International, Marshall, according to Behr, said that he was caught in a "fracturing-fluid" spill. [Fracturing chemicals are routinely used on oil and gas wells where they are pumped deep into the ground to crack rock seams and increase production.] The chemical stench coming off Marshall's boots was buckling, says Behr. Mercy officials took no chances. They evacuated and locked down the ER, and its staff was instructed to don protective masks and gowns. But by the time those precautions were enacted, Behr had been nursing Marshall for 10 minutes--unprotected. "I honestly thought the response was a little overkill, but good practice," says Behr, 54, a 20-year veteran at Mercy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil & Gas Exploration: Is
Click to expand...


A worker got some chemicals on him?

and they stunk.

Don't get me wrong, I never said the work can't be dangerous, but no one has ever died from a bad smell.


----------



## RGR

jillian said:


> The record is there. I don't want to hear stories about people's water being set on fire.



Water being set on fire isn't a "record". People near coal mines have been doing it longer than you have been alive. And certainly even the anecdotal claims of Gasland have nothing to do with how the fracing process itself could produce such a result.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> What I DO think is untenable is not controlling the manner in which the fracking is done.



The frac engineer is always doing his best to control the manner in which the fracing is done. Why would you pretend otherwise? Is this yet another one of those Gasland claims? Do you really think that the pump truck is turned on, and then everyone runs off for a smoke break while the formation is being pressured up against, broken down, the pad being run followed by the proppant? All of this is controlled very closely, which is also why the frac engineer is the first person to know something has gone wrong. Not the landowner somewhere off in the distance looking for a pay off because he didn't happen to have the mineral rights and is irritated that his neighbor does.



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Don't you think an appropriate response to this issue is to look into these questions IN ADVANCE of the impact and not after when these places become huge superfund sites?



Places with lots of water and sand are called beaches, not superfund sites. Using that type of language reveals exactly what level of fair examination you are willing to display towards the practice.


----------



## RGR

Two Thumbs said:


> A worker got some chemicals on him?
> 
> and they stunk.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I never said the work can't be dangerous, but no one has ever died from a bad smell.



What if I doused you with water and forced you to stand in a sandbox? Good Gods man, some of it might stick to your feet if you happened to be bare footed! THE INHUMANITY!!!!


----------



## appleannie1

I live in Pennsylvania.   Everyone within miles of me used to have good wells.   Then Marcellus Shale started drilling and fracking for natural gas.  Now we all have to buy water for drinking and cooking and all our laundry has an orangish hue or plain rust spots from the iron that has been released into our water sources.  Sinks and toilets and shower walls have all turned rust colored and I personally have to clean the inside of my toilet tanks a couple times a week to get the black slime out.   The water in our rivers that are the major sources of city water have increasing contamination with bromides.  In some areas they have reached dangerous levels.    

Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
Sunday, March 13, 2011

Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region's rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say.

Unlike radiation, which so far has shown up at scary levels only in Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing wastewater sampling done at wellheads, the spike in salty bromides in Western Pennsylvania's rivers and creeks has already put some public water suppliers into violation of federal safe drinking water standards.



Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater


Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater


----------



## martybegan

appleannie1 said:


> I live in Pennsylvania.   Everyone within miles of me used to have good wells.   Then Marcellus Shale started drilling and fracking for natural gas.  Now we all have to buy water for drinking and cooking and all our laundry has an orangish hue or plain rust spots from the iron that has been released into our water sources.  Sinks and toilets and shower walls have all turned rust colored and I personally have to clean the inside of my toilet tanks a couple times a week to get the black slime out.   The water in our rivers that are the major sources of city water have increasing contamination with bromides.  In some areas they have reached dangerous levels.
> 
> Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
> Sunday, March 13, 2011
> 
> Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region's rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say.
> 
> Unlike radiation, which so far has shown up at scary levels only in Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing wastewater sampling done at wellheads, the spike in salty bromides in Western Pennsylvania's rivers and creeks has already put some public water suppliers into violation of federal safe drinking water standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
> 
> 
> Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater



The bromide issue is solvable by requring the treatment plants to change thier process to inlcude bromide reduction. 

As for your first statement, sources?


----------



## appleannie1

martybegan said:


> appleannie1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Pennsylvania.   Everyone within miles of me used to have good wells.   Then Marcellus Shale started drilling and fracking for natural gas.  Now we all have to buy water for drinking and cooking and all our laundry has an orangish hue or plain rust spots from the iron that has been released into our water sources.  Sinks and toilets and shower walls have all turned rust colored and I personally have to clean the inside of my toilet tanks a couple times a week to get the black slime out.   The water in our rivers that are the major sources of city water have increasing contamination with bromides.  In some areas they have reached dangerous levels.
> 
> Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
> Sunday, March 13, 2011
> 
> Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region's rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say.
> 
> Unlike radiation, which so far has shown up at scary levels only in Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing wastewater sampling done at wellheads, the spike in salty bromides in Western Pennsylvania's rivers and creeks has already put some public water suppliers into violation of federal safe drinking water standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
> 
> 
> Read more: Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bromide issue is solvable by requring the treatment plants to change thier process to inlcude bromide reduction.
> 
> As for your first statement, sources?
Click to expand...


   No sources, just personal observation since I, along with my neighbors are the people having to deal with this.   The gas company did come in and test.  They admitted that the iron content had gone up over 400% since they tested before drilling.   They said all that was needed was a water softener.  We now have soft red water that we cannot drink.  I buy 'The Works' by the gallon trying to keep my sinks, tubs and toilets looking decent.


Actually, we are lucky.  It could have been much worse.  
Lawsuit: Gas Drilling Fluid Ruined Pa. Water Wells


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11646036


----------



## RGR

appleannie1 said:


> Actually, we are lucky.  It could have been much worse.
> Lawsuit: Gas Drilling Fluid Ruined Pa. Water Wells
> 
> 
> Lawsuit: Gas Drilling Fluid Ruined Pa. Water Wells - ABC News



Defective cement. So nothing to do with fracturing, just a well in which the cement didn't set up as expected. Imagine my surprise that this isn't a hydraulic fracturing problem.


----------



## TShepstone

Fracturing is unleashing our reserves and making America great again.


----------

