A Free Movie - Sunday, April 17th
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3262) 11 years ago
"GASLAND" -- This is a movie you won't want to miss!

WHERE: MILES COMMUNITY COLLEGE, RM. 317

WHEN: SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 3 P.M., APRIL 17

COST: FREE!!! Refreshments for minimal donation.

ENTER: Parking Lot on Albertson's Side


JOIN YOUR FRIENDS for this "MUST-SEE" Event -- Josh Fox's Academy-Award nominated documentary!.

There is a reason Gasland was nominated for an Oscar and won the Special Jury Prize for best documentary
at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. This investigative film vividly shows the real impact of unregulated fracking (a
controversial drilling technique for gas) on communities, farms, homes and anyone who cares about protecting
America's drinking water. (Sweet Grass County in the Yellowstone River drainage is already targeted for fracking.)

You'll learn everything you need to know about fracking and the millions of tons of highly toxic chemicals used to
break apart shale to release more natural gas.

Folks are hosting FRACKING MOVIE NIGHTS across the nation. Join us here in Miles City.

For more information, call or email: Deborah Hanson 232 2134 ([email protected]), Susanne Galbraith 234 9288 ([email protected]). RSVP would be nice but not necessary.
Top
Posted by ringin10 (+71) 11 years ago
I have no experience with fracking or the movie "Gasland". My assumption was that it portrayed fracking as something the devil would use to eliminate us all.

But I do know several people who do fracking for a living for a certain company on the outskirts of Miles City so I had to research a little.

I did a little research and did find that "Gasland" was not well received by officials and others for the simple reason it shows 1 side of a truth and on top of that its not 100% true in what it states as fact.

http://blog.energytomorro...bAod6VGIIA

This is one blog that may help anyone curious about fracking and its affects as I was. If you want to know about fracking I would suggest doing the research yourself and making your own decision. Don't let someone else do it for you by showing you his 1 sided opinion on a video.

[This message has been edited by ringin10 (4/14/2011)]

[This message has been edited by ringin10 (4/14/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3262) 11 years ago
Thanks for the Industry Response. Another good link is the following:

http://www.hbo.com/docume...index.html

I have seen the Documentary and, it is powerful but...it is good to know every side of an issue. I know that NDSU is studying the affect that the dust from the roads is having on the crops. I think that the book, "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery has a brilliant perspective on the environment, for what it's worth.
Top
Posted by ringin10 (+71) 11 years ago
It is not an industry response as I do not work in fracking and honestly do not understand it.

I know that it supplies one of my family members with a good living.

My point is that people need to know everything about an issue not just what 1 evironmentalist feels is the truth. I am by know means an environmentalist but I also feel precaution does need to be taken for the future of our planet.

From my simple understanding fracking is mainly pressurized water and sand and very little chemical. Not "millions of tons of highly toxic chemicals used to break apart shale to release more natural gas". This process is also done well below the water table.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+303) 11 years ago
Josh Fox answers his critics. Link below

http://1trickpony.cachef...t_2010.pdf

Two other links that do not have a "pony in the race"

http://ithaca.wishingwell...g-examined

TEDX's manuscript Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective has been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, a peer-reviewed scientific journal (PDF).

Link below

http://www.endocrinedisru...3-3-11.pdf

Hope you will see the film!

[This message has been edited by souix (4/16/2011)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 11 years ago
Never trust a corporation out to make a profit. Basic rule of life.

The biggest problem with energy generation is not pollution. It is corporations willing to kill people in exchange for profit. If corporations just put life in all its forms ahead of its profits, I would be happy to see drilling everywhere, but I know the corporation will cut corners and we, the little people, will suffer.

I think corporations can still make money by being heedful of life but not as much profit and to the corporate mindset, some profit is not enough. It must be the maximum amount achievable. Ask those workers who died on the oil rig in the gulf. Ask the workers in coal mines all over the southeast. As the folks in Libby who lived near the asbestos mine.

I don't trust word one from an energy corporation and that is their own fault.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15369) 11 years ago
Rule number two in life is never use a paint roller where you should use a small brush.

Rule number three is one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.

Yes, there are fly-by-night energy operations out to make a quick buck that will endanger the lives of people to accomplish their objective. Frankly, most of these outfits get to exist because some regulatory agency was slack in their administration and government wants their cut of the royalties too.

On the other hand there are a lot of large, well-know corporations where safety is a way of life. These corporations spend millions of dollars per year in workplace training and safety programs. Safety and avoidance of environmental impact are more important in these companies than making money. They invest all kinds of money in simulators to avoid accidents. I have witnessed over the last 10 years or so a pretty dramatic shift in attitudes on safety and environmental issues.

I attended a meeting this past week where the BLM is requiring equipment on shallow CBM wells that actually will create more of a hazard or potentially create environmental pollution. Yet, if an accident happens the tree huggers will all point to those "evil corporations" when they are simply working within the parameters that were mandated by some punk kid bureaucrat in an office in DC who doesn't even know where Montana or Wyoming is on the map.

Painting ALL corporations as caring only about financial greed is not correct. There is a greedy 501c3 poverty mentally alive and well in that is IMO just as bad.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (4/16/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15369) 11 years ago
Some interesting facts about the burning water in the Gasland movie. Turns out the methane in the "burning water" was from biogenic sources (iron bacteria and sulfur reducing bacteria), NOT thermogenic sources.

There was one situation where the gas well was improperly sealed and methane leaked from one aquifer to another.

Even in this case the oil & gas industry fracking method WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

Here is a summary report from the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission, which is the agency responsible for regulating the industry:

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

The documentary Gasland has attracted wide attention. 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. Because an informed public debate on hydraulic fracturing depends on accurate information, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) would like to correct several errors in the film's portrayal of the Colorado incidents.

Background

Methane is a natural hydrocarbon gas that is flammable and explosive in certain concentrations. It is produced either by bacteria or by geologic processes involving heat and pressure. Biogenic methane is created by the decomposition of organic material through fermentation, as is commonly seen in wetlands, or by the chemical reduction of carbon dioxide. It is found in some shallow, water-bearing geologic formations, into which water wells are sometimes completed. Thermogenic methane is created by the thermal decomposition of buried organic material. It is found in rocks buried deeper within the earth and is produced by drilling an oil and gas well and hydraulically fracturing the rocks that contain the gas. In Colorado, thermogenic methane is generally associated with oil and gas development, while biogenic methane is not.

The analytical methods use to differentiate between the two types of methane are well-known, scientifically accepted, and summarized in a well-known presentation by Dennis Coleman and papers by I.R. Kaplan and Dennis Coleman. These works, in turn, cites nearly 75 other references related to the topics of methane generation, "fingerprinting," forensic investigations, and stable isotope geochemistry.

Based upon our review of hundreds of Colorado gas samples over many years, the COGCC is able to differentiate between biogenic and thermogenic methane using both stable isotope analysis of the methane and compositional analysis of the gas. In the Denver-Julesburg and Piceance Basins, the COGCC has consistently found that biogenic gas contains only methane and a very small amount of ethane, while thermogenic gas contains not just methane and ethane but also heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, butane, pentane, and hexanes.

As explained below, Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.

The Weld County Wells

Gasland features three Weld County landowners, Mike Markham, Renee McClure, and Aimee Ellsworth, whose water wells were allegedly contaminated by oil and gas development. The COGCC investigated complaints from all three landowners in 2008 and 2009, and we issued written reports summarizing our findings on each. We concluded that Aimee Ellsworth's well contained a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic methane that was in part attributable to oil and gas development, and Mrs. Ellsworth and an operator reached a settlement in that case.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: Mike King, Executive Director COGCC COMMISSION: Richard Alward - Thomas L. Compton - DeAnn Craig - Mark Cutright - Michael Dowling - Joshua B. Epel - Trési Houpt - Mike King - Martha Rudolph COGCC STAFF: David Neslin, Director - Margaret Ash, Field Inspection Manager - Debbie Baldwin, Environmental Manager - Stuart Ellsworth, Engineering Manager -Carol Harmon, Hearings Manager

However, using the same investigative techniques, we concluded that Mike Markham's and Renee McClure's wells contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity. Unfortunately, Gasland does not mention our McClure finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand.
The Markham and McClure water wells are both located in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Weld County. They and other water wells in this area draw water from the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer, which is composed of interbedded sandstones, shales, and coals. Indeed, the water well completion report for Mr. Markham's well shows that it penetrated at least four different coal beds. The occurrence of methane in the coals of the Laramie Formation has been well documented in numerous publications by the Colorado Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists dating back more than 30 years.

For example, a 1976 publication by the Colorado Division of Water Resources states that the aquifer contains "troublesome amounts of . . . methane." A 1983 publication by the United States Geological Survey similarly states that "[m]ethane-rich gas commonly occurs in ground water in the Denver Basin, southern Weld County, Colorado." And a 2001 report by the Colorado Geological Survey discusses the methane potential of this formation and cites approximately 30 publications on this subject.

Laboratory analysis confirmed that the Markham and McClure wells contained biogenic methane typical of gas that is naturally found in the coals of the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer. This determination was based on a stable isotope analysis, which effectively "finger-printed" the gas as biogenic, as well as a gas composition analysis, which indicated that heavier hydrocarbons associated with thermogenic gas were absent. In addition, water samples from the wells were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), which are constituents of the hydrocarbons produced by oil and gas wells in the area. The absence of any BTEX compounds in these water samples provided additional evidence that oil and gas activity did not contaminate the Markham and McClure wells.

The COGCC has also reviewed the records for all oil and gas wells located within one-half mile of the Markham and McClure wells, which is more than double the typical hydraulic fracture length in Colorado. This review indicated that: all oil and gas wells near the Markham well were drilled and hydraulically fractured in 1991, except for two wells that were fractured in 2005 and 2006, respectively; and all oil and gas wells near the McClure well were drilled and hydraulically fractured in 2002, except for one well that was hydraulically fractured in 2005. The records do not reflect any pressure failures or other problems associated with these wells that would indicate a loss of fracture fluid or gas from the well bore into the surrounding geologic formations.

In support of its thesis that the Markham and McClure water wells were contaminated by oil and gas development, the Gasland website makes several arguments that merit a brief response. First, the website quotes Professor Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University for the proposition that drilling and hydraulic fracturing could cause biogenic methane to migrate into aquifers under certain circumstances. However, Professor Ingraffea's statement does not suggest that these circumstances apply to the Markham and McClure wells, nor does it address the extensive scientific literature establishing that biogenic methane is naturally present in the aquifer in question. Second, the website quotes Weston Wilson, an Environmental Protection Agency employee, speculating that oil and gas operators in Weld County are withdrawing large amounts of groundwater and that these withdrawals are releasing biogenic methane. However, oil and gas companies in Weld County obtain most of their water from municipalities, which obtain such water from surface water sources such as the Colorado-Big Thompson and Windy
Gap projects.

Finally, the website asserts that the water in the Markham and McClure wells deteriorated after drilling and hydraulic fracturing occurred nearby. However, COGCC records indicate little or no temporal relationship between the Markham and McClure complaints and nearby drilling and hydraulic fracturing activities, which occurred several years earlier and in most cases many years earlier.

The West Divide Creek Seeps

Gasland also addresses complaints about oil and gas activity in the West Divide Creek area of the Piceance Basin in Garfield County, though it again confuses issues related to biogenic gas with those related to thermogenic gas. The film focuses on two seeps that are in close geographic proximity but derive from different origins. One of the seeps occurs in a wetland on property owned by Lisa Bracken, who appears in the film; it contains biogenic methane. The other seep, which the COGCC terms the West Divide Creek gas seep, is about 1,500 feet to the south on property owned by a neighbor; it contains thermogenic methane caused by EnCana's failure to properly cement a natural gas well.
Gasland adopts the claim that the West Divide Creek gas seep was caused by hydraulic fracturing. After investigating the matter thoroughly in 2004, COGCC staff concluded the seep was caused by gas migrating up a gas well borehole that had not been properly cemented and in which the upper portion of the gas bearing Williams Fork Formation had not been isolated.

On August 16, 2004, following a public hearing, the COGCC commissioners approved an enforcement order (Order 1V-276) that incorporated the staff's causation conclusions and assessed a substantial fine against the operator.

In investigating the West Divide gas seep, the COGCC determined that it contains thermogenic methane. The gas composition and stable isotope signature of the gas closely matched that of the gas being produced from the Williams Fork Formation. The gas from both the West Divide Creek seep and the Williams Fork Formation is composed primarily of methane, but it also contains ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and hexanes. In addition, BTEX compounds were detected in ground and surface water in the vicinity of the West Divide Creek seep, which indicates that the gas is related to oil and gas activities and not of biogenic origin.

In contrast, the laboratory results for the gas samples collected from the seep on Ms. Bracken's property have demonstrated that the gas is biogenic. The COGCC has collected nine gas samples on six different occasions during 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2010. With respect to each sample, the gas composition was found to be 100 percent methane, no heavier hydrocarbon compound was detected, and the stable isotope ratio indicated that the gas is biogenic. The COGCC has also collected six water samples on four different occasions during 2004, 2007, and 2009 and ten soil samples on multiple occasions during 2008 and 2009 from Ms. Bracken's property. BTEX compounds and/or other hydrocarbons associated with oil and gas operations were not detected in any of these samples. Based on these results, the COGCC has concluded that the gas seep on Ms. Bracken's property resulted from the fermentation of organic matter by methanogenic bacteria. This is not uncommon in wetland areas, such as those that exist along West Divide Creek.

Other Information

Oil and gas development is an industrial activity, and property owners sometimes complain that it has contaminated their water well. The COGCC investigates all such complaints and reports the results individually to the complainant and collectively to the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division. In some cases, the COGCC has found that the well contains thermogenic methane linked to oil and gas development. In most cases, however, the COGCC has found that contamination is not present or that the methane comes from biogenic sources and is not attributable to oil and gas production. The following excerpt from a report summarizing the COGCC's investigation following the contamination of the Ellsworth water well is illustrative:

In response to concerns regarding the presence of methane gas in water wells completed in the Laramie/Fox Hills Aquifer, COGCC, Noble Energy, and Anadarko/Kerr McGee sampled a total of 28 water wells between March 25, 2009 and April 7, 2009 across an approximately 170 square mile area. Sample results show that these wells contained either no methane gas or biogenic (biological generated) methane gas. None of these wells, other than the Ellsworth water well, contained thermogenic methane gas. The sample results along with letters discussing the results were sent by COGCC staff to the 28 well owners [who had requested testing].

Nevertheless, it remains important to establish prudent regulations to ensure that other resources, such as groundwater, are protected. Producing oil and gas formations in much of Colorado, including the Denver-Julesburg and Piceance Basins, lie at depths of up to 8,000 feet below the ground surface, while the aquifers that sustain domestic water wells are generally less than 1,000 feet below the ground surface. COGCC regulations establish casing and cementing standards to ensure that gas being produced from 8,000 feet down does not leak into the shallower aquifers. These regulations require wells to be cased with steel pipe and the casing to be surrounded by cement to create a hydraulic seal within the annular space between the wall of the well bore and the steel pipe. In addition, a number of recent amendments to the COGCC regulations address concerns raised about hydraulic fracturing:

 Rule 205 requires operators to inventory chemicals, including fracturing fluids, and to provide this information upon request to the COGCC and certain health care professionals;

 Rule 317 requires cement bond logs to confirm that aquifers are protected;

 Rule 317B imposes mandatory setbacks and enhanced environmental
precautions on oil and gas development occurring near public drinking water sources;

 Rule 341 requires well pressures to be monitored during hydraulic fracturing;

 Rule 608 mandates additional pressure testing and water well sampling for coalbed methane wells; and

 Rules 903 , 904 , and 906 impose enhanced requirements for pit permitting, lining, monitoring, and secondary containment to ensure that pit fluids, including hydraulic fracturing flowback, do not leak.

Finally, it should be understood that the COGCC Director, Dave Neslin, offered to speak with Gasland's producer, Josh Fox, on camera during the filming of the movie. Because the issues are technical and complex and arouse concerns in many people, Director Neslin asked that he be allowed to review any material from the interview that would be included in the final film. Unfortunately, Mr. Fox declined. Such a discussion might have prevented the inaccuracies noted above.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+303) 11 years ago
Richard,

Have you seen the film?

Other concerns are; what are the chemical that are used in the fracking fluid and why does the industry not want to disclose them.

Why was the monitoring of fracking taken out of The Clean Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act? If it is safe then the companies should not mind being monitored.


This is from the site Affirming Gasland

http://www.damascuscitiz...ASLAND.pdf

E-I-D claims: Mike Markham in Gasland]: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development. But that's not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). "Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. . There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)

Biogenic gas can migrate as a result of gas drilling. And hiding behind "biogenic" gas
classification is yet another common industry obfuscation tactic.
E-I-D asserts that the gas that Mike Markham lights at his tap was classified as "biogenic" by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, so therefore the problem cannot be attributed to drilling. This is a very misleading assertion, and it is false in several ways.
A distinction is being made here between "biogenic" and "thermogenic" natural gas. "Biogenic" gas is created by decomposing organic material, and is found in pockets close to the surface.
"Thermogenic" natural gas is created by intense pressure in underground rock formations and can come only from deeper layers (including shale, which are targeted by fracking). The different types of gas can be identified by isotopic tests that "fingerprint" the gas. However, gas fingerprinting simply identifies the gas. It does not identify the migratory pathway of the gas - a key omission.
Just because Mike Markham's gas is "biogenic" doesn't mean that its migration into water supplies was not caused by drilling.
I asked Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research for more than 30 years has involved structural mechanics, finite element methods, and fracture mechanics: "Can drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer?"
His reply: "Yes, definitely. The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus, or though a faulty cement job. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults."

So, just because the COGCC labeled the gas "biogenic" doesn't mean that they actually looked into how it got there. As Professor Ingraffea states above, there are several ways that drilling and fracking can cause biogenic natural gas to migrate into aquifers. COGCC did not conduct a hydro-geologic study to determine the migratory pathways of the gas into the water supply -despite citizens' conviction that the problems with their water happened after fracking occurred nearby.



This is an interesting video by Dr Theo Colborn
http://www.endocrinedisru...player.php

I think we should error on the side of caution.
Top
Posted by Joe Smity (+104) 11 years ago
"what are the chemical that are used in the fracking fluid and why does the industry not want to disclose them"

Read the MSDS. The industry does and has disclosed them, for quite some time.

"Why was the monitoring of fracking taken out of The Clean Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act?"

Inappropriate application of legislative regulation. This is NOT a technology that has direct interaction with drinking water sources or with the atmosphere. This technology is applied subsurface, thousands of feet underground, in a closed environment that does not have a direct path to drinking water sources or the atmosphere.

Hydraulic well fracturing is not new technology, it's been used for 40+ years in this industry. And no, this is not a new application of this technology, it's the same process that has been used for those 40+ years. And no, horizontal drilling is not new either, it's been around since the seventies (in any practical sense). Any claims otherwise applied to these technologies is patently false.

I watched this movie shortly after it came out. There is are a couple of questions that are skillfully avoided in this movie that really need to be considered with a GREAT degree of scrutiny.

1) How can a well fracture close to two miles deep that can only extend at most maybe 1500' from the well bore reach a surface water supply or reach an underground aquifer that is only hundreds of feet deep?

Without answering this question, the whole premise of the movie is based on inference, speculation and loose association without ANY hard, causal evidence. The truth of the matter, with today's technology this isn't possible. You can't deliver enough horsepower down-hole with the technology available today to produce well fractures that extend that far. As Richard has already stated, barring a bad cement job, there isn't a path for formation gas to migrate up the well bore outside of the well casing and contaminate these water sources.

2) Why was the gas from the burning faucets or the bubbling streams not tested against the wellhead gas to identify it as same source?

This is a simple process to do with a gas chromatography. Doing so would have at least provided some semblance of credibility to the argument of the source of the "faucet gas". Without firmly establishing the source of the "faucet gas" again we're left with inference, speculation and loose association without ANY hard, causal evidence.

This piece was designed to elicit an emotional response from the audience, creating sympathy for the folks shown in the movie (the apparent victims) and strong demonizing sentiment towards the operating companies. It is effective in that effort, but it does so without a scientific approach to the issue that would have established a much greater degree of credibility with a critical audience. The further effect of such a piece is that once the affected audience has their emotions charged by this, reasonable discussion ceases to be possible, with a barrage of deflective comments streaming forth that have no bearing on the discussion, comments such as "You must work in the industry, of course you would take their side", "Someone is paying you to say that", "Don't you care about the people who have been affected by this evil work?", "Don't you care about the environment?", "These companies make obscene profits, they can afford to exercise more caution!", "They don't need to drill here and pollute our streams!", "You can't believe what big business tells you, they always lie!" etc. When these comments start, intelligent discussion stops.

Take this movie for what it is, an emotional piece that presents a number of people with unfortunate circumstances in their lives and a lot of visually impactive scenes meant to generate a strong emotional response.

If your looking for a factual piece with sound scientific methods employed to prove the claims asserted, this ain't it.

[This message has been edited by Joe Smity (4/18/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15369) 11 years ago
why does the industry not want to disclose them.


Because drilling is a competitive business. By keeping the ingredients of the fracking fluid proprietary we can keep the "fly-by-night, out to make a quick buck" drilling companies out of the mix, as they don't know how or what the reputable companies are doing. It also helps finger print an individual drilling operation because they use a proprietary solution. In the very unlikely event something goes wrong, we know who to hold responsible. I don't know about Montana, but the Oil & Gas commission and the water quality division in Wyoming know the fracking fluid ingredients of each operator.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (4/18/2011)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+303) 11 years ago
This is a common industry tactic, to claim that hydraulic fracturing [HF] has been used for 60 years. This is deliberately misleading.

The new hydraulic fracturing that has brought about so much attention in the last few years is different in many ways from the historic fracturing:

1) the pressure used is much higher and the duration of the frack job is longer. Today HFemploys typically 13,500 pounds of pressure per square inch, whereas earlier HF was less than 10,000 pounds per square inch.

2) the volume of water used: two to seven million gallons per frack, with Multi Stage Fracks lasting up to three or four days, at 1,000 gallons per minute

3) the combination of HF with horizontal drilling, a huge new aspect, and

4) the complexity of the chemical cocktail used in the process.

However, the industry frequently contradicts itself, wanting to tout both the reassurance that this technique is tried and true and that it has created an innovative technology that unlocks gas that was previously not considered recoverable. The industry touts the "new technological breakthrough" of HF as unlocking the Marcellus shale in ways that could not have been done years ago.

On Chesapeake Energy's Hydraulic Fracturing "fact" site, this contradiction is evident:
"Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracing, is a proven technological advancement which allows natural gas producers to safely recover natural gas from deep shale formations. This discovery has the potential to.... [emphasis added]." Later in the same passage we get the same refrain: "Hydraulic fracturing has been used by the oil and gas industry since the 1940s..."


Inappropriate application of legislative regulation. This is NOT a technology that has direct interaction with drinking water sources or with the atmosphere. This technology is applied subsurface, thousands of feet underground, in a closed environment that does not have a direct path to drinking water sources or the atmosphere.


An article on the air quality in Pinedale, WY:

Air Pollution Advisory: Ozone
For Upper Green River Basin/Sublette County
by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

February 27, 2008

The Air Quality Division of Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality is issuing an air pollution advisory beginning Wednesday, February 27, for the Upper Green River Basin, in Sublette County.

The advisory is for ozone, which is an air pollutant that can cause respiratory health impacts especially to children, the elderly and people with existing respiratory conditions.

People in these sensitive groups should limit strenuous or extended outdoor activities, especially in the afternoon. The advisory is expected to be in effect for several days. The DEQ will issue another advisory when conditions change and ozone levels return to normal.

The Air Quality Division advises that people in sensitive groups should avoid strenuous outdoor activity when eight-hour ozone values are between 85 and 105 parts per billion. The general public should avoid such activity when eight-hour ozone values are above 105 parts per billion.

Elevated wintertime ozone is an unexpected occurrence which is being studied by the Division. Typically, higher ozone levels occur in large cities in the summer when there is plenty of sunlight to cause the photochemical reactions in the atmosphere which lead to ozone formation.

In the past week, the highest eight-hour ozone levels at the Division's monitor at Daniel was 76 ppb, the highest at the Jonah monitor was 85 ppb, and 122 ppb was reached at the Boulder monitor.

All of these levels are preliminary and may change after the data has been subjected to the Division's quality control checks.

Ozone appears to be elevated in the Basin when there are strong temperature inversions, low winds, snow cover, and bright sunlight, and levels return to normal when any one of those conditions change. Current information on ozone levels at these three monitors can be found at www.wyvisnet.com.

For further information, contact Keith Guille, Wyoming DEQ Public Information Officer, at 307-777-7781.




Related Links
Sublette County Ozone Air Pollution Alert - February 27, 2008 (PDF)
EPA comments to BLM regarding PAPA Revised Draft SEIS - (PDF)
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Monitoring Program Information - Including the SW Wyoming Monitoring Network Assessment project
Top
Posted by Joe Smity (+104) 11 years ago
"1) the pressure used is much higher and the duration of the frack job is longer. Today HFemploys typically 13,500 pounds of pressure per square inch, whereas earlier HF was less than 10,000 pounds per square inch."

Patently false. Pressures used in the 1970's to fracture wells in Texas in the Permian Basin and Wyoming in the Overthrust often exceeded 15,000 psi.

"2) the volume of water used: two to seven million gallons per frack, with Multi Stage Fracks lasting up to three or four days, at 1,000 gallons per minute"

Again, patently false. Multistage Frac jobs in Texas and Oklahoma in the 70's and 80's often lasted a week or more, requiring millions of gallons of fluid.

"3) the combination of HF with horizontal drilling, a huge new aspect, and"

Again, same response. False.

"4) the complexity of the chemical cocktail used in the process."

Actually the mix has become less complicated.

"However, the industry frequently contradicts itself, wanting to tout both the reassurance that this technique is tried and true and that it has created an innovative technology that unlocks gas that was previously not considered recoverable. The industry touts the "new technological breakthrough" of HF as unlocking the Marcellus shale in ways that could not have been done years ago."

"On Chesapeake Energy's Hydraulic Fracturing "fact" site, this contradiction is evident: "Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracing, is a proven technological advancement which allows natural gas producers to safely recover natural gas from deep shale formations. This discovery has the potential to.... [emphasis added]." Later in the same passage we get the same refrain: "Hydraulic fracturing has been used by the oil and gas industry since the 1940s..."

What is new is the application of these technologies to increase oil and natural gas production from previously low/very low production tight shale basins. The technologies themselves are not new.

"...Ozone levels in Jonah field of Wyoming..."

Diversionary tactic. Why the ozone levels are higher in the winter than the summer is still under investigation. Ozone levels rise in the summer due to increased sunlight which helps create ozone. There is NO evidence that the increase of ozone is due to hydraulic well fracturing.


You can parrot all the false you want off the Gasland website, doesn't change the fact that the claims are poorly researched, based on bad inference and no science.

What is being attempted to change the rules to require proof of innocence. What the standard is and has been is proof of guilt.

Hard, causal evidence is all that is needed to lend credibility to the claims.

[This message has been edited by Joe Smity (4/19/2011)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+303) 11 years ago
Another fracking accident spilling "thousands and thousands" of gallons of fracking fluid into a river...on the one year anniversary of the Gulf Oil Spill

http://www.businessinside...nty-2011-4
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15369) 11 years ago
I am curious, Souix, what forms of energy are acceptable to you to meet the baseload electrical needs of the country?

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (4/20/2011)]
Top
Posted by ringin10 (+71) 11 years ago
A question for all those opposed to fracking,

When natural gas/oil prices skyrocket because all the gas/oil is now stuck in the shale are you gonna blame yourselves or still point a finger somewhere else?

I understand that this question may seem a little dramatic and far fetched, but so is the thought that the sand/water/chemical mixture used in fracking will somehow move thousands of feet after being used.

Accidents happen in every field of work not all of them see the light of day. Anything that may affect the environment is instantly headline news, so another debate can be started.

How many chemicals does the automotive industry use each year?
How many chemicals are used to keep everyones lawns looking good each year?

Absolutely everything cannot be good for the environment. It just doesnt work that way. Is everything you eat good for you? No, but do you eat it anyways? The earth has been around for billions of years, the earth will outlive all of us.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+303) 11 years ago
Is that my choice, fracking or no electricity?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3714) 11 years ago
Everything has it's price. What would you say is the death toll due to fracking?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15369) 11 years ago
Is that my choice, fracking or no electricity?


I don't know what your choices are. You seem to be anti-fracking, anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-oil, and are probably anti-whale oil.

Given all that you are "anti", what forms of energy are acceptable to you to meet the baseload electrical needs of this country?

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (4/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9469) 11 years ago
I'm happy to support fracking: with proper oversight and transparency.

It would really suck if, twenty years down the road, we end up with a bunch of superfund sites, just because some would prefer to pursue profits now, and wait for taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleanup.

But, as I said in another thread, people aren't terribly interested in discussing or contemplating what life in the post peak-oil era will really mean.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/21/2011)]
Top