Moderator: Community Team
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.
Endgame422 wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.
Honestly I never would have thought Wyoming had water issues. During my few short trips the climate was high and dry but I figured runoff from the Rockies would supply plenty. Colorado only ever has water issues because Nevada/California would dry up if weren't for the western slopes runoff. That said we have a fair bit if cracking about 25 minutes north of me(near where some of my family lives) and the only complaint I ever heard from them was the influx of people moving to town and ruining the secluded feeling they had.
Endgame422 wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.
Honestly I never would have thought Wyoming had water issues. During my few short trips the climate was high and dry but I figured runoff from the Rockies would supply plenty. Colorado only ever has water issues because Nevada/California would dry up if weren't for the western slopes runoff. That said we have a fair bit if cracking about 25 minutes north of me(near where some of my family lives) and the only complaint I ever heard from them was the influx of people moving to town and ruining the secluded feeling they had.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.
notyou2 wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.
Is fracking occuring in your state?
PLAYER57832 wrote:If you mean Wyoming, yeah.. its been going on for years.
HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however". you first have to distinguish between basic hydraulic fracking and deep water hydraulic fracking. The companies very much try to blurr the distinction. A LOT of the claims they make about it "being safely used for decades", etc refer to shallow wells, even partially laterally dug wells. (that is, they go sideways not just down ).
The first, where wells are relatively shallow, etc. has been going on for decades and has had relatively few problems. There is certainly disturbance of the ground around the drill sites, a big increase in truck traffic, which can be a pretty big deal in rural areas, and yes, a lot of water is used that cannot, as of now, be reclaimed (and not likely for quite some time.. many decades hence, if at all). A lot of the Wyoming activity is this type of well activity.
Where I live, in Western PA, as well as over in Ohio (where they are getting fracking related earthquakes) and various other areas, they are practicing DEEP water hydraulic fracking. Those wells go hundreds of feet down and laterally ,, across. This type of technology is relatively new, though exactly how new is somewhat debatable. Companies claim that it began in the 1990's. Other sources say that what we are experiencing now, the combination of very deep wells, dug laterally, is less than a decade old.
At any rate, it is the latter type of well that is most controversial on many fronts. In Ohio, they are documenting low-level Earth quakes. The quakes I have heard about are in the 4.0-5.0 Richter scale range (for those of you not from CA , this is something like a very large truck going by an old rickety house. Its not going to level many buildings, though houses not built for quakes can experience damage. And, well, the real point is both that even a small series of quakes where there were basically none is a worry...and, no one really knows what the long term prospects or impact might be.
Another concern is water contamination. There is a highly sensational move "Gasland" (and, apparently a follow up Gasland II) that shows dramatic shots of people lighting their faucets on fire...basically their water faucets are acting like a methane burner outlet. The thing is, while methane and those shots look very dramatic, and while apparently some methane poisoning has happened, the real concern from methane is not toxicity, it is explosion.. and fixing it basically just means venting well. Just as an example, all the houses near a local dump have had big vent pipes put into their yards, precisely because methane tends to build up there. Those vents are really enough to just send the methane up into the air, dilute enough that it won't burn. The REAL problem is not methane, the real problem is all the hundreds (apparently, its at least that many chemicals) of chemicals that are used. Apparently some are quite toxic, but no one outside of the company hierarchy are allowed to know.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Initially, they did not even notify local officials where their sites were. New roads would pop up and emergency responders would not even know about them.... and I mean guys who hunt and fish regularly, so I am not talking people who sit in their houses and Google what they want to know. Luckily, VERY luckily, there has not yet been a major incident. However, at a recent training the chiefs (all the area chiefs) attended, they were flat out told that they would not be called for a couple of hours, would not be given much information... etc.
On top of this is the fact that because these wells are lateral and because most mineral rights are not owned by property owners in this area, no one really even knows how far these wells are going. We have one well pad set a few hundred feet from our water supply reservoir. There is little doubt that this well goes under the reservoir, but not only did local folks and government entities have absolutely no way in this, we were not even told, still have not officially been told anything.. at all.
anyway, that ought to be enough background for anyone. If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer, but I am not an expert.
notyou2 wrote: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.
notyou2 wrote:The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.
The EPA's control is limited, for a variety of reasons. Why is part of the mess that folks are trying to sort out. Court cases move slowly, at best. Also, there is often little standing. Basically, once someone owns the mineral rights, you have no say at all on what happens underground. Some say that surface rights technically extend down only 1-3',( which is actually less than many people's basements). Also, you have to prove harm. That means, generally knowing what chemicals you are facing/documenting the specific harm AND being able to tie it to fracking... and having the money to fight billion dollar companies with politicians in their back pockets.BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:If you mean Wyoming, yeah.. its been going on for years.
HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however". you first have to distinguish between basic hydraulic fracking and deep water hydraulic fracking. The companies very much try to blurr the distinction. A LOT of the claims they make about it "being safely used for decades", etc refer to shallow wells, even partially laterally dug wells. (that is, they go sideways not just down ).
The first, where wells are relatively shallow, etc. has been going on for decades and has had relatively few problems. There is certainly disturbance of the ground around the drill sites, a big increase in truck traffic, which can be a pretty big deal in rural areas, and yes, a lot of water is used that cannot, as of now, be reclaimed (and not likely for quite some time.. many decades hence, if at all). A lot of the Wyoming activity is this type of well activity.
Where I live, in Western PA, as well as over in Ohio (where they are getting fracking related earthquakes) and various other areas, they are practicing DEEP water hydraulic fracking. Those wells go hundreds of feet down and laterally ,, across. This type of technology is relatively new, though exactly how new is somewhat debatable. Companies claim that it began in the 1990's. Other sources say that what we are experiencing now, the combination of very deep wells, dug laterally, is less than a decade old.
At any rate, it is the latter type of well that is most controversial on many fronts. In Ohio, they are documenting low-level Earth quakes. The quakes I have heard about are in the 4.0-5.0 Richter scale range (for those of you not from CA , this is something like a very large truck going by an old rickety house. Its not going to level many buildings, though houses not built for quakes can experience damage. And, well, the real point is both that even a small series of quakes where there were basically none is a worry...and, no one really knows what the long term prospects or impact might be.
Another concern is water contamination. There is a highly sensational move "Gasland" (and, apparently a follow up Gasland II) that shows dramatic shots of people lighting their faucets on fire...basically their water faucets are acting like a methane burner outlet. The thing is, while methane and those shots look very dramatic, and while apparently some methane poisoning has happened, the real concern from methane is not toxicity, it is explosion.. and fixing it basically just means venting well. Just as an example, all the houses near a local dump have had big vent pipes put into their yards, precisely because methane tends to build up there. Those vents are really enough to just send the methane up into the air, dilute enough that it won't burn. The REAL problem is not methane, the real problem is all the hundreds (apparently, its at least that many chemicals) of chemicals that are used. Apparently some are quite toxic, but no one outside of the company hierarchy are allowed to know.
What's been the EPA's role in this? How about court cases?
BigBallinStalin wrote:[PLAYER57832 wrote:Initially, they did not even notify local officials where their sites were. New roads would pop up and emergency responders would not even know about them.... and I mean guys who hunt and fish regularly, so I am not talking people who sit in their houses and Google what they want to know. Luckily, VERY luckily, there has not yet been a major incident. However, at a recent training the chiefs (all the area chiefs) attended, they were flat out told that they would not be called for a couple of hours, would not be given much information... etc.
On top of this is the fact that because these wells are lateral and because most mineral rights are not owned by property owners in this area, no one really even knows how far these wells are going. We have one well pad set a few hundred feet from our water supply reservoir. There is little doubt that this well goes under the reservoir, but not only did local folks and government entities have absolutely no way in this, we were not even told, still have not officially been told anything.. at all.
anyway, that ought to be enough background for anyone. If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer, but I am not an expert.
How can that persist? If the local government owns the water supply reservoir, and they're concerned about possible contamination, then what prevents them from conducting tests and going to court about the issue?
Man-made earthquakes, a side effect of some high-tech energy drilling, cause less shaking and in general are about 16 times weaker than natural earthquakes with the same magnitude, a new federal study found.
People feeling the ground move from induced quakes — those that are not natural, but triggered by injections of wastewater deep underground— report significantly less shaking than those who experience more normal earthquakes of the same magnitude, according to a study by U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Susan Hough.
tzor wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... REPORT: Fracking Doesn't Create Destructive EarthquakesMan-made earthquakes, a side effect of some high-tech energy drilling, cause less shaking and in general are about 16 times weaker than natural earthquakes with the same magnitude, a new federal study found.
People feeling the ground move from induced quakes — those that are not natural, but triggered by injections of wastewater deep underground— report significantly less shaking than those who experience more normal earthquakes of the same magnitude, according to a study by U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Susan Hough.
Due to this breaking information, we will not play "I feel the earth move under my feet" at this time.
PLAYER57832 wrote:#1 Source of your information?
PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 the issue is not the magnitude, its that man made activity like this can cause Earthquakes at all. Also, these quakes and all other impacts are very recent. History tells us that worst impacts in the environment are often long term.
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.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, as I said before, the worst worry are the chemicals -- chemicals that are not even identified, making any definitive testing even more difficult.
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.
notyou2 wrote:This is what a nationalbodyof scientists is recommending to the federal government and my provincial government is ignoring it.
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx
Council wrote:Although the technologies and techniques used in extracting shale gas are understood, more research and information is needed on the potential environmental impacts that could result from this process. In Canada, shale gas development has moved forward in British Columbia and Alberta while potential development is still being explored in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Unlike the United States, Canadian development has moved at a slower pace. This slower pace of development presents a unique opportunity for Canada to take the time to explore and determine the proper management practices to develop its shale gas resources responsibly.
Council wrote:For Canada, regional context matters. Environments, ecosystems, geographies, and geologies are not uniform across the country. Therefore, consideration of different potential regional impacts need to be closely considered when determining the suitability for shale gas development.
[/quote]tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#1 Source of your information?
I provided a link ... you didn't check? [U.S. Geological Survey]
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 the issue is not the magnitude, its that man made activity like this can cause Earthquakes at all. Also, these quakes and all other impacts are very recent. History tells us that worst impacts in the environment are often long term.
Then let's all live in caves then because who knows what disasters are lurking from modern
[/quote]tzor wrote: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?"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users