Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output

DeafCaroline said:
Yes, we would all like oil to be cheaper but would be better not to use it at all. Shale oil or fracking is so destructive that residents of Colorado and Alberta were able to set their tap water on fire. No exaggeration. If you do your research on fracking, you would realize it's a very very very bad idea.
Meanwhile, here's some info: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/561/017/762/?z00m=19988841
Click to expand...

People tend to exaggerate on the wild side thinking it's the case everywhere in every circumstances. No.
 
ah.... working for oil company, I see.
 
kokonut said:
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Click to expand...

Forgot to add this.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

"The Obama Administration has it right: there are no documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing," Senator Inhofe said. "Hydraulic fracturing is a safe production technique that is thoroughly regulated by the states. We have a 60 year history to prove it.

"With the unemployment rate at 10 percent, we need to put people back to work. Imposing more bureaucracy and regulation will destroy jobs and stifle opportunities for those looking to find a job. The oil and gas industry employs 6 million people in the U.S. I want to see that number go up, not down."
Click to expand...
 
Um, you guys realize that BP is allowed to drilll for oil again in the Gulf, in the exact same area to try to retrieve the rest of the oil remaining in the ground? The world is not run by politicians but by corporations. Oil brings in HUGE HUGE revenue for the US who is now severely in debt. So, yes, they are not going to make a big deal out of fracking. They need the money too badly.

And yes, tap water catching on fire was on the news and I remember it very well, that happened 2 years ago. The government is going to say there isn't enough studies done to prove it, of course they would. My prime minister is saying the same thing.

They are going to do what they can to reduce their debt - so whatever brings in copious amounts of revenue, you bet they will try to minimize the cons of it.

Anyway, all I am saying is that fracking - if you understand how it works - is basically splitting apart the ground in order to retrieve natural gas - but the process of doing so is what's so destructive - ever heard of the film "Gasland"?

Anyway, we're very close to the breaking point as far as this planet is concerned - so, I'd rather we start moving towards greener technology - not keep doing the same thing that's destroying this planet in the first place.

I'm an activist for wildlife and the environment and no, I don't just read radicals' statements, I also read the news, government reports, objective scientists' reports, documentaries, etc etc. I always try to make sure I got all sides of the story first before making an opinion.

And my opinion is, say no to fracking. It's not worth the risk.


The one who said it's an exaggeration, did you research?
 
DeafCaroline said:
Yes, we would all like oil to be cheaper but would be better not to use it at all. Shale oil or fracking is so destructive that residents of Colorado and Alberta were able to set their tap water on fire. No exaggeration. If you do your research on fracking, you would realize it's a very very very bad idea.
Meanwhile, here's some info: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/561/017/762/?z00m=19988841
Click to expand...

The Tyee – Albertan, Tired of Her Tap Water Catching Fire, Sues

Yikes.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Um, you guys realize that BP is allowed to drilll for oil again in the Gulf, in the exact same area to try to retrieve the rest of the oil remaining in the ground? The world is not run by politicians but by corporations. Oil brings in HUGE HUGE revenue for the US who is now severely in debt. So, yes, they are not going to make a big deal out of fracking. They need the money too badly.

And yes, tap water catching on fire was on the news and I remember it very well, that happened 2 years ago. The government is going to say there isn't enough studies done to prove it, of course they would. My prime minister is saying the same thing.

They are going to do what they can to reduce their debt - so whatever brings in copious amounts of revenue, you bet they will try to minimize the cons of it.

Anyway, all I am saying is that fracking - if you understand how it works - is basically splitting apart the ground in order to retrieve natural gas - but the process of doing so is what's so destructive - ever heard of the film "Gasland"?

Anyway, we're very close to the breaking point as far as this planet is concerned - so, I'd rather we start moving towards greener technology - not keep doing the same thing that's destroying this planet in the first place.

I'm an activist for wildlife and the environment and no, I don't just read radicals' statements, I also read the news, government reports, objective scientists' reports, documentaries, etc etc. I always try to make sure I got all sides of the story first before making an opinion.

And my opinion is, say no to fracking. It's not worth the risk.


The one who said it's an exaggeration, did you research?
Click to expand...

Re: the bolded...I would step that up one notch and say the politicians, as well, are run by corporations.

To answer your last question: I doubt it. He considers himself and expert. Doesn't bother with facts.
 
jillio said:
Yeah, yikes!:shock:
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA"]YouTube - ‪Faucet Water Ignites! Natural Gas in Well Water! THANKS DICK!‬‏[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6G6Ap-mF0k&NR"]YouTube - ‪Dont drink this water‬‏[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg"]YouTube - ‪Ignitable Drinking Water in Candor, NY, Above Marcellus Shale‬‏[/ame]

Gasland: What's Fracking?

Based on the concept shown on the website, it's obvious that fracking is far from a good thing.
 
and p.s. that report was released in 2009. It's been revised since then with stricter standards for fracking...AFTER the BP oil spill.

Here's a much more recent article - published May 8, 2011 and here's a quote from it: "But the practice also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also a few documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water. "

See that word in the quote above? ..."documented".

Anyway, what do I know, I'm just a tree hugger. Anyone who cares about clean water and clean land must be a tree hugger for no person in their right mind would ever care according to Kokonut's logic.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Anyway, what do I know, I'm just a tree hugger. Anyone who cares about clean water and clean land must be a tree hugger for no person in their right mind would ever care according to Kokonut's logic.
Click to expand...

We need more people like you. People need to be held responsible for their actions. No exceptions.
 
Anybody who supports this idea should drink the water affected from this process.
 
"Anybody who supports this idea should drink the water affected from this process. " If I could "like" this a hundred times, I would! I like you, deafskeptic :)
 
DeafCaroline said:
Um, you guys realize that BP is allowed to drilll for oil again in the Gulf, in the exact same area to try to retrieve the rest of the oil remaining in the ground? The world is not run by politicians but by corporations. Oil brings in HUGE HUGE revenue for the US who is now severely in debt. So, yes, they are not going to make a big deal out of fracking. They need the money too badly.

And yes, tap water catching on fire was on the news and I remember it very well, that happened 2 years ago. The government is going to say there isn't enough studies done to prove it, of course they would. My prime minister is saying the same thing.

They are going to do what they can to reduce their debt - so whatever brings in copious amounts of revenue, you bet they will try to minimize the cons of it.

Anyway, all I am saying is that fracking - if you understand how it works - is basically splitting apart the ground in order to retrieve natural gas - but the process of doing so is what's so destructive - ever heard of the film "Gasland"?

Anyway, we're very close to the breaking point as far as this planet is concerned - so, I'd rather we start moving towards greener technology - not keep doing the same thing that's destroying this planet in the first place.

I'm an activist for wildlife and the environment and no, I don't just read radicals' statements, I also read the news, government reports, objective scientists' reports, documentaries, etc etc. I always try to make sure I got all sides of the story first before making an opinion.

And my opinion is, say no to fracking. It's not worth the risk.


The one who said it's an exaggeration, did you research?
Click to expand...

Certainly, what you've presented is an exaggeration as if this cross contamination with drinking water occurs regularly but I recognize your concerns. Before I move forward let me provide you my background knowledge on this very subject. I have a M.S. geology with an emphasis on contaminant hydrogeology, groundwater and modeling. For more info on my thesis defense on groundwater contamination go here: (http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat...thesis-your-masters-degree-2.html#post1549987 ).

The issue I understand coming from you is the frequency of cross contamination between hydraulic fracturing and water wells. Fracking is hydraulic fracturing based on fluid pressure exerted on rocks far below the ground (a few thousand to several thousand feet below) to force oil and gas out of the porous rocks. I'm not adverse to seeing regulations improve such as introducing to Congress the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act). That Act would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the same laws and regulations that are used for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program which has its own controversy as well. Updating and improving this regulation is necessary to help protect groundwater resources. This is NOT an unregulated activity.

I think a lot of the negative public perception on shale gas and hydraulic fracturing is mostly from the lack of technical awareness of how shale gas extraction occurs.

I'm also not adverse to expand on drilling studies based on drilling methods, geologic type and formation, groundwater understanding in the confined, unconfined and semi-confined aquifers, etc...etc.... There will be cross contamination issues and it will happen. This has been true with groundwater withdrawal (nothing to do with oil and gas) where cross contamination between fresh water and brackish or saline water has happened many times. We can only learn from it and reduce the risk of such cross contamination.

Breaking point? Hardly. Earth and nature are quite resilient. I think you meant about certain wildlife species that are at risk which is a different story. We're here in a geologic blink of an eye. We'll come and go.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Um, you guys realize that BP is allowed to drilll for oil again in the Gulf, in the exact same area to try to retrieve the rest of the oil remaining in the ground? The world is not run by politicians but by corporations. Oil brings in HUGE HUGE revenue for the US who is now severely in debt. So, yes, they are not going to make a big deal out of fracking. They need the money too badly.

And yes, tap water catching on fire was on the news and I remember it very well, that happened 2 years ago. The government is going to say there isn't enough studies done to prove it, of course they would. My prime minister is saying the same thing.

They are going to do what they can to reduce their debt - so whatever brings in copious amounts of revenue, you bet they will try to minimize the cons of it.

Anyway, all I am saying is that fracking - if you understand how it works - is basically splitting apart the ground in order to retrieve natural gas - but the process of doing so is what's so destructive - ever heard of the film "Gasland"?

Anyway, we're very close to the breaking point as far as this planet is concerned - so, I'd rather we start moving towards greener technology - not keep doing the same thing that's destroying this planet in the first place.

I'm an activist for wildlife and the environment and no, I don't just read radicals' statements, I also read the news, government reports, objective scientists' reports, documentaries, etc etc. I always try to make sure I got all sides of the story first before making an opinion.

And my opinion is, say no to fracking. It's not worth the risk.

The one who said it's an exaggeration, did you research?
Click to expand...

I completely forgot to address the Gasland video. What many people don't realize about the so-called problem of this "flammable water" (natural gas) as seen in Gasland is that this problem goes back decades before before fracking began. How convenient for that video to omit that minor factoid to the audience. That alone discredit the movie outright.

Also, what many people don't realize is that in that region (Pennsylvannia, West VA, Ohio, western Maryland, etc) it sits on a geologically rich shale formations (Marcellus and Utica shale) whose rocks are naturally fractured due the folding of the shale stratigraphy over the hundred of millions of years (btw, the Appalachian mountains are ancient mountain chain which is much, much older than the mountains of the west and was underwater many times, hence the many shale and coal seams found throughout the eastern Appalachian states). It is common that groundwater in aquifers naturally gets "contaminated" with methane and natural gas seepage. They are known as VOC or Volatile Organic Compounds. Benzene is one of the VOC species found in natural gas.

Of the "4,528 (groundwater) samples collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (mostly benzene, toluene, styrene, and xylenes)" from 1979 to 2006, in Pennsylvania, 23.5 percent exceeded the MCL (maximum contaminant level). Pretty telling, huh? And this was before hydraulic fracturing which began in 2007.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/314/pdf/ds314.pdf

Lastly, this horizontal hydraulic fracturing is typically done anywhere from over 2000 to 8000 feet below the surface into the Marcellus shale formation (Utica shale beneath the Marcellus shale is even deeper!). Access to groundwater aquifer for domestic use typically occurs a few feet below the ground surface to depths over 100 to 200 feet. Some 20,000 new private wells are drilled each year around in Pennsylvania. Yet water quality problem persists and it is a huge drinking water problem for the state because many aquifers are found in shallower shale and limestone geologic formations. In shale aquifers you'll find "hydrogen sulfide (which causes the rotten-egg odor), iron, and manganese often occur in certain sandstone and shale aquifers." Also, "corrosive water from acidic sandstone and shale can cause the lead and copper to dissolve from household plumbing, leading to toxic concentrations capable of causing serious health effects in humans."
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh183.pdf

You have two things, horizontal hydraulic fracturing occurs anywhere from 2000 to 8000 feet below the ground surface versus groundwater wells for domestic use and consumption typically go several below to 100 to 200 feet below the ground surface. This is one of the biggest reason the problem of proving that hydraulic fracturing causes groundwater contamination problem. Hence, proving that the forced VOC will cause it to migrate upward thousands of feet (through several different kinds of geologic formations) and affect groundwater quality near the surface. Plus, much of the groundwater are already naturally contaminated with variety of contaminants including benzene that is found in natural gas, for example, in many cases as I have already shown to you in the above (see links to documents I've provided).

I'd avoid movies like "Gasland" because it is designed to prey on the public limited understanding about geology, hydrogeology and the geological technology being used to access gas and oil today. It's not that simple to assume a direct connection when you're dealing with such a technology being used several thousand feet below to a groundwater contamination problem several tens of feet below the surface. Now, I'm not saying this is not possible. I've already addressed that I'm not adverse to seeing more studies on hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination and, if any, a connection between the two.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a lot of plagiarizing going on here. :hmm:
We all know you-know-who's level of thinking.
 
Last edited:
I already provided links to documents where I got my information from in support of my arguments and standings on the subject of hydraulic fracturing, geology and groundwater. In it includes quotes from those documents. Mulling about the possibility of my "plagiarizing" shows a complete and total disengenious attempt on your part, Beowulf, to try and somehow "prove" something nefarious about my writings. Guess what? Nice try.
 
nobody gives a shit. give it up.

NIMB!
 
Back
Top