Gas Fracking Again...

[snagged in outlet 3]

I don't believe him Gmud.

The chemicals are used as lubricants. His way would destroy his own drilling equipment.

I hope I'm wrong though.

SIO3

[gotmuddy]

I hope so too. I think he isn't lying because I said nothing to him about the evils of fracking.

[Mitch f]

I've been hearing rumblings of a new technology that might be a solution to our gas fracking problems. It's a new method for drilling called "dry drilling" developed in Canada. Apparently most of the natural gas in Canada is deeper and more dense than in the US. This "dry drilling" extracts the gas without liquid, using only 100% nitrogen gas. This dry drilling method extracts up to 6 times more gas than conventional methods. In Oct 2010 Exxon Mobil signed a licensing deal with this company. Sounds like good news to me, but I don't want to jump the gun.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Why is it in this country someone can make a film that stretches the truth, or ignore it, and it's taken as gospel? When did keeping an open mind and researching all the available data before making up our minds become extinct?

Frankly Friday The 13TH scared the bejeebus out of me.

Natural gas at $1.40 a gallon, delivered by a pipeline rather than a tanker, that goes up instead of down if leaked, and that doesn't need next weeks terorist to pump it looks like something we should be absolutely sure is more destructive than our present energy options before we buy the first negative, so-called, documentary.

Why is it that dioxin and white toilet paper is fine, but water, sand and salt, for the most part is kin to arsenic?

[Justin Spencer]

It seems as if the truth probably falls in the middle somewhere, and new studies need to be conducted to find a safe way to get the gas out. I don't understand how people can be mad at one side and not the other when the film-makers stretch the truth and the gas companies stretch the truth both to try and support their stance. I am glad the film was made because it may at least make us revisit the safety of these practices and make us rethink how we can get to this gas safely.

I desperately want them to find a safe way for gas to be released from the shale as I think it would help the economy, lessen our dependance on foreign oil as well as potentially helping the environment by displacing the use of oil and coal. I'm not however willing to back the gas companies until we really know what this frickin fracking is really doing to the water supply as well the surface of the earth above it.

Hopefully in 10 years we'll all be driving natural gas cars and enjoying more energy independence, but I wouldn't hold my breath, and hope we don't do it with so many environmental questions yet to be answered.

[Tim Smith]

Why is it in this country someone can make a film that stretches the truth, or ignore it, and it's taken as gospel? When did keeping an open mind and researching all the available data before making up our minds become extinct?

Frankly Friday The 13TH scared the bejeebus out of me.

Natural gas at $1.40 a gallon, delivered by a pipeline rather than a tanker, that goes up instead of down if leaked, and that doesn't need next weeks terorist to pump it looks like something we should be absolutely sure is more destructive than our present energy options before we buy the first negative, so-called, documentary.

Why is it that dioxin and white toilet paper is fine, but water, sand and salt, for the most part is kin to arsenic?

I haven't seen Gasland yet, but from the follow up and the fact that universities like Duke have confirmed the flaming spigots and many of the troubling things in that film, it's hard to see how this level of rejection is appropriate.

Scientists must wait until they have absolutely conclusive proof to draw conclusions. Often by doing so, they fail to support things that are true. Popular media, though often wrong, are also often right before scientists follow up later. In this case, it appears there is much to be concerned about.

Salt, by the way is one of the most toxic things you can put in freshwater. You can spill oil on a field an in a few months it will come back green. If you put salt on it, years of rain might not wash it out. The way shrimp farmers regulate their use of salt water is probably the biggest determinant of their environmental impacts. In the case of hydrofracking it's also clear there is more than salt water going down those holes.

[snagged in outlet 3]

Please elaborate Wayne..

I saw the list of "lubricants" used and I wouldn't want those anywhere near a watershed.

Pete

[Al Agnew]

Much of the stuff in the film has been documented. Pretty much every gas field that's been opened up since this boom started has had problems. Are they exaggerated in the film? Probably in some areas. But the problems go way beyond burning tap water. My fly fishing buddy is an environmental engineer who makes part of his living cleaning up after the messes some of these companies are making...and he has plenty of work.

I suspect that it's possible to do it in a reasonably environmentally sound manner, but the present get in, get it, and get out as soon as possible way of doing business isn't conducive to doing so.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Please elaborate Wayne..

I saw the list of "lubricants" used and I wouldn't want those anywhere near a watershed.

Pete

I don't know what you want me to elaborate on, but here's a little more on the Duke study.

Sounds like bad news. But when you read the fine print, the Duke researchers admit that "based on our data, we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids." Despite its misleading title, the study did not find that fracking as a technique contributed at all to the natural gas found the nearby water wells. In fact, the gas-rich shale lays several thousand feet below strata of impermeable rock from shallow surface drinking water aquifers. Instead, bad well casings that also occur with conventional gas wells appear to be the culprits. States already set standards for constructing proper well casings and impose penalties when companies fail to comply.

When new processes come on line in volume it isn't unusual for potential problems to occur, but when they product can be very beneficial it makes more sense to explore safe methods then to diss the process altogether. We still produce dioxin which would dwarf any drilling contaminants. The threat of dioxin is just as real, yet there is little being done to avoid the threat beyond careful disposal of the manufacturing waste, which is only one part of the threat.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Here's an article from the green side that makes a lot of sense and alludes to what I'm trying to say.

The Inconveinent Truth