NO FRACKING WAY - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:17:51 am
content: Recent discussions here have left me looking more into a process called fracking as a supply of new energy. Here in the US there are large supplies of coal called shale. This is largely inaccessible to conventional mining because it is found thousands of feet below the surface. But it contains large amounts of natural gas, so the mission here has been to find a way to access it. By fracking into these stores large quantities of gas can be mined.http://youtu.be/iK-iy3MbFUQAt first I thought the naysayers were simply green nuts with an agenda to put an end to any fossil fuel regardless of value or clean energy properties. Lots of complaining about seismic disruptions due to the underground explosions, which I find specious. Other arguments are that it is not really "green" because the gas must be transported, which inevitably means using petroleum.One argument I have heard is that this is natural gas, which amounts to a small amount of the energy presently used and that there is no current plan to be able to make use of this. I would counter the plants which use this gas to generate electricity are, of course, affordable to build and that, once that electricity is generated it might make a great adjunct to, I dunno, maybe electric cars which we are seeing more and more of.Never the less, the main argument seems to be that the process contaminates ground water. Now, given that water is found a few hundred feet below the ground and this shale is thousands of feet, one might wonder the problem.Well, here's the problem: that water happens to be in the way. One cannot drill thousands of feet without first drilling hundreds of feet. Oil companies say the shaft through the water table is lined with concrete, and so it is safe. Seems obvious this may be true - but only until the ground shifts.. say, due to an earthquake, or to tectonic plates shifting, or to ground freezing. One need only look at the ruins of rome to see the durability of concrete... and the brittleness.And there lies the rub: one cannot get to the gas without a means of transport. And getting the gas past the water means transporting the gas - and all the toxic chemicals used to access it - through an "impermeable" concrete pipe.It's my understanding Australia has some pretty vast reserves of this shale as well.http://youtu.be/PELxZ3K2o0cLucky you.http://youtu.be/7Dl6oIiK-1U

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:30:37 am
content: the other major issue is as they deplenish the pocket of gas (depending on the size a little) the ground will shift in unison which generally through tiny cracks release enough toxins into the water table to be tracable, (not toxic but tracible) with larger shifts from say a recent downpour softening a deeper layer allowing toxic amounts through,though on the flip side atleast in australia most natural gas is coal seam gas, so without it we would be forced back to electric only and would shut down about 70 major chemical plants around australia (they react other chemicals with gas not just use it for heating and power) whose chemicals in turn supply a large footprint of the industrial and household chemicals for our country,while that may sound pro gas i only point it out as a am good freinds to technitions in some of those componies,

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:31:00 am
content: I thought that the pipe is steel and the steel pipe is concreted in. Fracking has been in use for many years for oil extraction as well as gas and water, yes it's used for water bore holes that is where it was used first.The problem is that it is being used more often and not being properly regulated these days, Cut the red tape and you cut the safety inspectors and the operators cut the corners. Then when something goes wrong there is much wringing of hands and wailing by all.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 02:36:03 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Pop is already on record as saying "The biggest difference I see, in fact, between fracking and nuclear power is nuclear guarantees you're going to have toxic waste to handle for the next 100,000 years, where fracking only has a 20% risk that you will permanently make the groundwater for miles around toxic."--Is there anybody out there who actually beleives that Hydraulic Fracturing actually pollutes the the ground water "for miles around toxic" 1 in 5 times. I wonder if the NY Times knows about this. What a completely preposterous assertion.--The CNN Video provided makes reference to the already widely discredited "documentary" Gasland, in order to get some of it accusations before the public. Gasland of course is famous for the "flaming faucet fraud" where a well that has had natural methane for decades is falsely presented as being the victim of "Fracking". So much for CNNs already damaged credibility. Remember, CNN is the one that had to retract an article about the use of Nerve Gas by the US in Vietnam, which was a complete fabrication. Then you have 60 Minutes of "Forged Bush Military Records" debacle, which resulted in the firing of Dan Rather. Lastly you have 60 Minutes Australia with its "Michael Moore" style documentary approach, complete with mood music to help you really get into the feeling of abject terror. This one also mentions and uses footage from the already discredited Gasland. Now generally I tend to think, that as a general matter, the Australians have more common sense still left, than Americans, but clearly some of the "News TV" is even more luridly nauseating, my condolences.--Ask youself this. If many individual frack wells were each killing hundreds of birds per year, would they escape the attention of the authorities? Likewise if frack wells were polluting the ground water for miles around one fifth of the time, would it really escape the notice of the major media. Even 60 Minutes and CNN could probably not swallow that one."I am no poet, but if you think for yourselves, as I proceed, the facts will form a poem in your minds."Michael Faraday 1791 1867Best RegardsClear Ether

author: bullet308
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 02:52:08 pm
content: I would imagine that the impacts of fracking would vary a good bit depending on the geology of a given area.I can tell you that New York City at present depends on maintaining a pristine watershed above the city, as they have no water treatment facility. The risks of fracking in in that area would tend to be greater than a lot of other places, I imagine. Of course, NYC will not hesitate in repressing economic development in the upstate to preserve its own interests, the locals be damned. There is a lot of history there, and a lot of resentment.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 06:34:24 pm
content: SgtRock raises many good points... if you know absolutely nothing about how the process works and look at it in a way detached from reality.When you frack, you put high pressure slurry into the hole. AFAIK these chemicals are mostly what are used in other underground drilling processes. Generally that's water with sand and bentonite or other stabilizing materials. They're usually not terrible because you don't actually use much. Fracking uses a HUGE volume of this slurry, because you have to actually break up a large volume of underground strcture. Fracking also involves a lot of different chemicals depending on the geology and some of those chemicals are harmful. Additionally you nearly always end up with a crapload of brine water, which is actually a pain to dispose of without leeching salt everywhere and screwing up the surrounding area by making it too salty.When you're done, natural gas comes out and so does a ton of the slurry. Disposing of what comes out, and making sure what is left in the ground, is generally what people get upset about. The entire concept of fracking is built on "geological isolation", the geological formations trapping the gas are a barrier to the fluid flowing out. There is a great deal of skepticism that this idea is actually holding true, accounting for a lot of pollution.There are also issues with the well heads themselves, made of concrete, deteriorating after some time. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the drilling companies aren't maintaining these wellheads and the EPA isn't monitoring them well enough.So no, fracking is not at all proven to be safe. There are a ton of questions and more and more it's looking like there are tons of environmental problems with it that were never big enough before the boom to draw big attention.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:04:31 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Jerry507 has said "SgtRock raises many good points... if you know absolutely nothing about how the process works and look at it in a way detached from reality."--I kind of wonder if Jerry actually read my post. Other than criticizing the provenance of the videos provided, the only point I made was that the assertion that fracking make the ground water toxic for miles around 1/5 of the time, is astoundingly preposterous.--I understand that anyone whatsoever who disagrees about any aspect of the green agenda must be marginalized by calling them fools, or shills, or no nothings or crazy, that is what you do when you cannot refute a given point. Hatred and hostility, followed by charges like:"There are also issues with the well heads themselves, made of concrete, deteriorating after some time. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the drilling companies aren't maintaining these wellheads and the EPA isn't monitoring them well enough. So no, fracking is not at all proven to be safe. There are a ton of questions and more and more it's looking like there are tons of environmental problems with it that were never big enough before the boom to draw big attention." [No sources provided]--Please, every well of nearly any kind has been finished off this way for a long long time, that parctiular aspect of this technology is not new. And, really, what is the likelyhood that the EPA is not just bitting the furniture trying to figure out how to lower the boom, on this cheaper energy souce that is rapidly replacing coal, and some of the imported oil, while lowering the CO2 output. It must be stopped.--Still no takers on the frack wells making the ground water toxic for mile around 1/5 of the time, challenge. Don't hold your breath.Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:06:46 pm
content: Indeed. From what I've seen, the chemical slurry used consists of many chemicals known to be carcinogenic and others, like anti freeze fluid, that are merely poison.From Nature:"The agency tested the water in the shallow wells that tap the groundwater above the 169 gas-producing wells in the field; in two municipal wells in the town; and in several surface and deep wells that it drilled for monitoring purposes. It found evidence of contamination in both the shallow and deep wells, and attributed the shallow contamination to the 33 or so nearby surface pits used to store drilling wastes"169/33... hmmmm, that would seem to be about 5. As in 20%.And yes, it is getting the EPA's attention.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:15:01 pm
content: Quote from: jerry507 on October 04, 2012, 06:34:24 pmThis is what I wonder about.As the pressure changes in the naturally isolated geological formation (static condition prior to drilling), that it causes this "isolation" material to crack, not just the targeted material that contains the CNG, thus allowing for incursion/excursion of the chemistry in the Fracking process outside of the barrier they're assuming will contain it.As per how far the contamination can spread, I would think that underground water sources would have a huge impact on this, so can vary greatly according to the specific drilling site (thinking in terms of underground rivers).Just a thought anyway.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:17:36 pm
content: Just for the heck of it let's say there's only a .5% risk. With 30,000 of these plannedin Pennsylvania alonethat's a not inconsequential risk.OTOH there are articles citing 80,000 (yes, almost a HUNDRED THOUSAND - where do they put them all?) of these in Ohio with no incidents. And on the other other hand there is one verified incident (at least) where a house in Ohio exploded due to naturl gas leaking into the house from an overpressurized cap nearly a quarter mile away. So which is it? Unlike some in this forum I believe in looking at ALL the evidence and keeping an open mind. Once you set upon dogma you have nothing left to contribute to any rational conversation.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:34:59 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Pop has provided the below quote to back up his assertion that there is a 20% rate of the fracking wells causing toxic pollution to the ground water for miles around." "The agency tested the water in the shallow wells that tap the groundwater above the 169 gas-producing wells in the field; in two municipal wells in the town; and in several surface and deep wells that it drilled for monitoring purposes. It found evidence of contamination in both the shallow and deep wells, and attributed the shallow contamination to the 33 or so nearby surface pits used to store drilling wastes"169/33... hmmmm, that would seem to be about 5. [By 5, I think the meand 1/5] As in 20%."--From what I can see this apparently is data from one well field of 169 wells, with 33 surface pits, that apparently had a problem of unknown magnitude. A link to the article would have been nice to have. Now apparently, this is submitted as evidence, but it is just from one location. And as for dividing 33 surface pits into 169 wells, now I really am astounded. If anyone can make heads or tails out of this, please have at it.--This just off the wire, Pop has lowered his estimate from a certian 20% to a speculative half a percent.It is kind of like as if I said 20% of all air planes crash. Then, when challenged I mention some publication somewhere that mentions a plane crash, as proof of my assertion and then I say "Uh, well, would you believe half a percent--I am still wracking my brain trying to figure out how to divide 33 surface pits into 169 gas wells from one field to get a total of 20% or a half a percent of all fracking wells causing toxic pollution to the water for miles around."Happy for you to desoldering, please."Wun Hung Lo 1948 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:39:52 pm
content: How many percent of 169 is 33, sarge? Has that too tight helmet clamped down on your mathematical abilities?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 07:52:04 pm
content: Dear Pop:--Really, you are greening me. You are pulling my leg. But if not, what are you saying.--Please, someone else explain it to him. I give up.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 08:39:02 pm
content: Dear Pop:--Apparently, no one wants to explain it. I will try. The surface pits are where the extra water and the fracking fluid are pumped when the fracking is done. Since the surface pits are already full of fracking waste fluids, one cannot really say that they were accidently polluted by fracking fluids. Secondly waste pits are not wells and they are not groundwater. You cannot divide them into the total number of wells in a field to get a contaminated well percentage. All wells have surface pits while the fracking is being done.--Please tell me that you understand or do not understand. If you do not understand I will try to find a way to explain it better.Best Regards

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2012, 08:49:52 pm
content: You cannot divide them into the total number of wells in a field to get a contaminated well percentage. All wells have surface pits while the fracking is being done.How silly of me. Waste pits cannot count as fracking sites, but all fracking sites have waste pits.How logical.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 05, 2012, 01:00:31 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Is there a prize for successfully guessing that this is a Turing Test?"A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into believing that it was human."Alan Turing 1912 - 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2012, 02:25:04 am
content: To help resolve this discussion I have heard that:Apple corp has patented rounded corners for the use of green windpower to clean up fracking waste using Arduinos connected by Audio monster cable.This should put the matter at rest.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2012, 09:47:29 pm
content: This is how so many subjects go. I have no desire to do a ton of reading to satisfy Sgt. Rocks desire for proof. If I was getting paid as a researcher, sure thing. But this isn't a place where serious research gets done and even if it was provided he'd still call it BS and insinuate it's crap as he's already done.There's always some naysayer who wants to drag it from a conversational discussion to a numbers game, but of course they will never provide the numbers and carefully avoid taking any position other than the devils advocate.It's simply not worth it.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 05, 2012, 10:07:03 pm
content: Dear Jerry507:--As a general matter, the person(s) claiming that frack wells cause toxic pollution for miles around 20% of the time, would be the ones expected to provide proof, and not the folks who say it is a ridiculous assertion. People clam we have been contacted by aliens as well, but it would be up to them to prove the assertion. The same for Big Foot, Santa Claus, and recent Elvis sightings.--After being repeatedly challenged to prove this assertion, Poptones mentioned a Nature article which supposedly says (see his earlier post) that contamination was found in wells near a 169 gas well field with 33 surface pits. Pop then divided the 33 surface pits into the 169 gas wells to prove his 20%. When challenged on this gibberish, he responded with even more incomprehensible (I am not exaggerating) gibberish.--I invite you, or anyone, to read Poptones post about the Nature article, and see if you can make sense of it. In the absence of any support for the math of dividing 33 surface pits into 169 gas well at one site to prove that frack wells pollute water 20% of the time. I can only conclude that no one agrees with it."Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."Lao Fu 1410 1620Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2012, 03:34:03 am
content: The thing that bugs me about this is that a good percentage of the opposing side has a giant confirmation bais against the energy source to the point where weak, poorly supported information and non-expert opinions are widely reported as fact if it favors the naysayer's agenda, and even well supported articles by actual experts get discounted because they have industry affiliation.Really, there are going to be risks associated with anything. However, we shouldn't immediately nay-say anything that might shift the risk burden even a tiny bit off of the world's poor, to the people who actually benefit from that energy.This is a good case in point. There might be a small risk associated with a lack of oversight over certain small franking operations. But forget taking easy practical steps to fix a minor regulatory problem. The coal plants that frakking is shutting down are only killing tens of thousands of *poor* people each year. Surely our self-absorbed suburban hysteria is more important than people who are too poor move away from industrial parks.

author: r90s
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2012, 04:34:44 am
content: "This is how so many subjects go. I have no desire to do a ton of reading to satisfy Sgt. Rocks desire for proof."@jerry507Hello,I guess you are saying you will get involved in a discussion, but you can't be bothered to know if your points are valid..The thing that I have noticed in every energy discussion, no matter what the source of the energy is, there seems to always be some reason why it's bad for the United states to have it.

author: twbranch
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2012, 11:18:21 am
content: The problem with society is they believe all the bullshit they see on CNN, NBC and youtube. Do your own research. Fracking is safer than battery powered cars. But yet all the libs in the US want is battery powered this and that. Oh and the quirly light bulbs?....what the hell do you guys think is in that? Don't even get me started on the global warming.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2012, 11:41:01 am
content: QuoteFatuous statement alert.I really don't you can back up that statement, no matter how much research you have done.And don't bother replying unless you can relax a bit and make a convincing argument about the safety of fracking.

author: twbranch
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2012, 07:07:19 pm
content: First you must show some proof, more than likely liberal gibberish, that fracking is not safe. For all you environazis out there, how do you suppose you get rid of batteries? Natural gas is well...natural which means the earth will find a way to heal itself like it has for thousands of years. I mean, isn't it funny how the materials we use are made from natural substances but everyone thinks that they will harm the environment? Hell even a battery is safe to an extent just not as safe as the fracking!What the hell does fatuous mean?

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2012, 12:58:37 am
content: LOL. Arsenic is natural too.I'm still undecided on this one. The technology being used now is very young.