Natural Gas Fracking

[PLAYER57832]

They are planning deep lateral drills in my area. Directional drilling has only been around afew decades as Player indicated. They won't divulge the chemicals that they are putting down the bores.

As near as I can tell the province owns the mineral rights, which trumps municiple regulations on water reservoirs and aquifiers. Many people in my province get their drinking water from wells.

The worst part is, natural gas is at a low in price, and the US Dept of Energy says the price will stay depressed for 20 to 25 years due to all the gas in shale deposits being exploited around North America. My province is broke and in major debt and they see this as our saviour. I see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I hear the compressor plants emit noise and light pollution and fumes. The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

I wonder if the province shouldn't wait until the price of natural gas is better and the technology is hopefully safer.

I'm sure your municipal government and the national government are doing everything they can to compensate you for the present and future costs. By the way, do you vote?

You can vote all you want, but government needs taxes to function, and the recent "all taxes are bad" rhetoric means that municipalities and everyone else often have little choice but to take money that essentially comes from big companies, often at the cost of ignoring negative impacts.

Corbett and recent legislation in PA regarding municipalities right (or rather lack of right) to object to drilling within their boundaries and water supply sources is an excellent example.

[BigBallinStalin]

They are planning deep lateral drills in my area. Directional drilling has only been around afew decades as Player indicated. They won't divulge the chemicals that they are putting down the bores.

As near as I can tell the province owns the mineral rights, which trumps municiple regulations on water reservoirs and aquifiers. Many people in my province get their drinking water from wells.

The worst part is, natural gas is at a low in price, and the US Dept of Energy says the price will stay depressed for 20 to 25 years due to all the gas in shale deposits being exploited around North America. My province is broke and in major debt and they see this as our saviour. I see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I hear the compressor plants emit noise and light pollution and fumes. The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

I wonder if the province shouldn't wait until the price of natural gas is better and the technology is hopefully safer.

You can vote all you want, but government needs taxes to function, and the recent "all taxes are bad" rhetoric means that municipalities and everyone else often have little choice but to take money that essentially comes from big companies, often at the cost of ignoring negative impacts.

Corbett and recent legislation in PA regarding municipalities right (or rather lack of right) to object to drilling within their boundaries and water supply sources is an excellent example.

I'm sure your municipal government and the national government are doing everything they can to compensate you for the present and future costs. By the way, do you vote?

[notyou2]

They are planning deep lateral drills in my area. Directional drilling has only been around afew decades as Player indicated. They won't divulge the chemicals that they are putting down the bores.

As near as I can tell the province owns the mineral rights, which trumps municiple regulations on water reservoirs and aquifiers. Many people in my province get their drinking water from wells.

The worst part is, natural gas is at a low in price, and the US Dept of Energy says the price will stay depressed for 20 to 25 years due to all the gas in shale deposits being exploited around North America. My province is broke and in major debt and they see this as our saviour. I see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I hear the compressor plants emit noise and light pollution and fumes. The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

I wonder if the province shouldn't wait until the price of natural gas is better and the technology is hopefully safer.

You can vote all you want, but government needs taxes to function, and the recent "all taxes are bad" rhetoric means that municipalities and everyone else often have little choice but to take money that essentially comes from big companies, often at the cost of ignoring negative impacts.

Corbett and recent legislation in PA regarding municipalities right (or rather lack of right) to object to drilling within their boundaries and water supply sources is an excellent example.

I'm sure your municipal government and the national government are doing everything they can to compensate you for the present and future costs. By the way, do you vote?

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor.. to continue:
Here is an article by the USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs ... rthquakes/

The whole article is too large to print, but these excerpt pretty much refutes your claim that these earthquakes are not a worry at all:

For example, wastewater disposal appears to be related to the magnitude-5.6 earthquake that struck rural central Oklahoma in 2011 leading to a few injuries and damage to more than a dozen homes. Damage from an earthquake of this magnitude would be much worse if it were to happen in a more densely populated area.

Now note, a 5.6 earthquake is not a huge quake. (I already compared most of the quakes, smaller than that, to a truck passing ) Still, damage to home and injuries mean its a serious quake, no matter what scale you want to use. An explosion causing that damage would make news, warrant heavy scrutiny.
STILL... my point, which you did not even counter, was that these quakes occurred at all was cause for concern. (translation.. "concern" means we need to look into it more, not just assume it is OK.. it doesn't mean we have cause to tar and feather the folks involved)

http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Is-the- ... anmade.cfm

Studies show one to three magnitude 3.0 earthquakes or larger occurred yearly from 1975 to 2008, while the average grew to around 40 earthquakes per year from 2009 to mid-2013.

“We’ve statistically analyzed the recent earthquake rate changes and found that they do not seem to be due to typical, random fluctuations in natural seismicity rates,” said Bill Leith, USGS seismologist. “These analyses require significant changes in both the background rate of events and earthquake triggering properties needed to have occurred to be consistent with the observed increases in seismicity. This is in contrast to what is typically found when modeling natural earthquake swarms.”

The Oklahoma analysis suggests that a contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes occurrence may be from injection-induced seismicity from activities such as wastewater disposal. The OGS has examined the behavior of the seismicity through the state assessing the optimal fault orientations and stresses within the region of increased seismicity, particularly the unusual behavior of the swarm just east of Oklahoma City.

Another piece of "information" widely published, with a slant that depends on the article, comes from the Dept of Interior:

Basically, they say they cannot definitively prove that many [of the recently reported quakes] are caused directly by either deep injection of wastewater or fracking, etc. (that is, all the operations generalized as Hydraulic fracking) BUT to make that statement complete, you have to add that there just is not enough information and data out there. The really key point is this:
(From the Dept of the Interior)

Currently, there are no methods available to anticipate whether a planned wastewater disposal activity will trigger earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern. Evidence from some case histories suggests that the magnitude of the largest earthquake tends to increase as the total volume of injected wastewater increases. Injection pressure and rate of injection may also be factors. More research is needed to determine answers to these important questions.

The artificial quakes may have less energy — only after 6 miles away — because the fault is lubricated by the injected wastewater, making it easier to slip and do so more smoothly in less of a herky-jerky motion, Hough theorized. Also these faults can be slipping with less pent-up energy than they would have if they slipped naturally years later.

And you were mentioning the "long term?"

Just to clarify, "theorized" (highlighted by me to emphasis it) does not mean fact, it means it is someone's idea. In this context, without supporting data or long-term studies, it is just speculation... and one of many points of speculation that may or many not each be correct.

ALSO, there is no "long term" in deep hydraulic fracking.

Also, as I said before, the worst worry are the chemicals -- chemicals that are not even identified, making any definitive testing even more difficult.

Proverbial straw man. Debunked in 2012 (from same article).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today [July 25, 2012] that it has completed its sampling of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pa. Data previously supplied to the agency by residents, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Cabot Oil and Gas Exploration had indicated the potential for elevated levels of water contaminants in wells, and following requests by residents EPA took steps to sample water in the area to ensure there were not elevated levels of contaminants. Based on the outcome of that sampling, EPA has determined that there are not levels of contaminants present that would require additional action by the Agency.

LOL -- you provide a link saying ONE set of claims was ruled in favor of a company and now try to claim this disputes my statement that the companies are using many toxic chemicals and not divulging what they are?
LOL
To begin, the example you chose is exactly the one I said was largely over-stated, used in Gasland, . Even so, here is this, from 2013:

A recent report in the Los Angeles Times revealed that EPA officials in Washington chose to close an investigation of Dimock drinking water despite evidence gathered from agency investigators based in Philadelphia that found “significant damage to the water quality,” from poisonous contamination likely caused by fracking.

The EPA PowerPoint Presentation was released last Monday on DeSmog blog by investigative journalist Steve Horn. Evidence of drinking water contamination due to fracking was similarly ignored by the EPA in Pavillion, WY, and Weatherford, TX. The resident-activists conducted a press conference on their way down to EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, where they will deliver about 50,000 petitions to new EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy calling on her to reopen investigations in Dimock, PA, as well as Pavillion, WY, and Weatherford, TX. They are also calling on EPA to provide safe drinking water to residents while these investigations recommence.

“For years now, I have had to live with toxic, poisoned fracked water in my home,” said Ray Kemble, a former gas industry employee turned whistleblower and an affected Dimock area resident. “When EPA finally stepped in and tested my water, I thought ‘Thank God. Someone is finally here to help us.’ But then it became apparent to those of us on the ground that they were playing politics. EPA officials literally told us officially that our water was safe to drink but then told us off-the-record not to drink it. Now the truth is out and we want justice.”

This article goes into that specific about the whole incident (for any not already familiar.. its not that long, but too much to post here)'

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/draic ... cabot.html

As someone who lives in a community located near farmland, I can tell you that there is a far greater danger of groundwater contamination from agriculture than there is from fracking, in fact it is already a major critical problem in many areas. After that, there is a far greater problem cause by ethanol enabled petroleum contamination by gas stations. (Ethanol allows the petroleum to propagate through the soil faster.)

LOL LOL LOL
As someone who has not only lived in and near farmland my entire life, AND who's field of study is water...

#1 define "Greater" in terms of sheer volume, absolutely. However, I would far rather deal with a whole lot of fecal matter (aka manure), phosphorus, chemical nitrogen, etc than fracking "xenoids".

#2 Agriculture has absolutely used some nasty chemicals in the past (DDT anyone?) and continues to invent new stuff. However, because we eat the food that comes from farms, it is subject to scrutiny and investigation in ways that fracking operations are not.

#3. Because agriculture happens on the surface, its pathways are largely known, filtered and controllable. (even if they are not always actually controlled, we know how to do so) Fracking changes the basic geostructure and underground fluid/air channels

#3 When someone asks if I would rather be poisoned with arsenic or cyanide, my answer is "neither" ! Agriculture poisons need to be studied, controlled and limited, so do hydraulic fracking chemicals. Unfortunately, fracking operations are happening very, very quickly and many entities (doctors, health departments, etc.) are not only not getting information they need, have even been prohibited from collecting it (either prohibited outright or just denied any associated funding).

The USGS/earthquake issue was a bit of an exception, but that is probably both because it was just too big to ignore and, overall was not that significant an impact for the immediate future (its more of a "if it does this, then what else might happen" situation).

[PLAYER57832]

My province has natural gas in the shale below it. There is a huge debate over fracking going on, there have even been riots and multiple arrests of protestors.

I am very interested in hearing of experiences of people living in areas where fracking is occuring. The issues, problems if any, such as with well water, odours, noise, vehicle traffic, waste water disposal, etc.

I would like to hear first hand experiences, not something someone saw on the net, etc.

I can give one new personal experience. There are now 5 trucks filled with explosive parked less than 5 blocks from my house, 6 from the local middle/high school, used for seismic testing for fracking... and no one, not even my husband who is the local the fire chief, was told by the company. My husband heard about it third or fourth hand, not from any official source (but yes, it is accurate).

Also, though we pretty well know a well will be sunk, if there is gas (and its very likely there is), no one has been or will be told anything official. They can drill right under the school and all our houses without notifying us. We have city water, but people up on the next hill are just past borough boundaries and have well water.

Just last year, a couple of these folks nearly wanted to get in a fist fight with me because I merely suggested (and I do mean mildly suggested! I certainly don't talk in person as I do here!) that we should at least question and verify what the companies say, not just take for granted that they will tell us the full truth. Last week, those same people stopped me in the street and asked me for suggestions no how to deal with the companies. I told them I was no expert, but to get a lawyer and to get their wells tested ASAP by an independent testing agency so they at least have baseline data.

Also, the wastewater from the fracking operations is not supposed to be sent to municipal sewage plants, because most of them have no means to deal with the chemicals (most sewage plants are geared to deal with biological waste only). Still, they sent it through our local plant.


Tzor.. do you seriously think a company that won't even tell the local fire chief (or police or state police...) that there are 5 truckloads of explosives in his town, do you seriously think they are going to divulge the list of chemicals they use in fracking?

Also, when I said they won't divulge the chemicals -- my husband has already been at a wreck where the driver flat out told him he could not say what was in the tanks at all. [ I won't repeat the rest of the conversation -- but after a few phone calls, he was simply told it was not of concern to his fire crew-- and within 2 hours there was an escorted tow truck and another driver] The last time I saw anything like that was during DOD operations (department of defense)!