Fracking (1 Viewer)

I am on the fence. Is there any hard evidence one way or the other about contaminating ground water?

There are already many examples of ground water contamination wherever it has been done.

In the long term, after the profit has been extracted, the mining companies will distance themselves from the leftover mess with a series of ownership manoeuvres. The clean up will become a public problem.

Moreover the last thing this warming planet needs is more stuff to burn.

Galaxiom said:

There are already many examples of ground water contamination wherever it has been done.

In the long term, after the profit has been extracted, the mining companies will distance themselves from the leftover mess with a series of ownership manoeuvres. The clean up will become a public problem.

Moreover the last thing this warming planet needs is more stuff to burn.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right, Galaxion.
The damage that the conglomerates do is permanent (see BP Oil disaster, Exxon Valdez, Union Carbide in Bhopal, Brooklyn Gowanus Canal, GE's long list of environmental atrocities on the Hudson River, list goes on and on) and the penalties that are imposed are mere slaps on the wrist, and do nothing to reverse the damage - because the damage is irreversible. After the superficial cleanup they say "there is no danger to the public" but we know better.
I was amazed when NY Gov Andrew Cuomo made the moratorium on fracking in NY State a "permanent" ban (not that the next Gov can't reverse it). There's so much money at stake.
The other side of the coin, of course, is what we're going to do about our long term energy needs. Any form of energy production (on a large scale) seems to be fraught with danger, and accidents are inevitable. After the accident, the finger pointing starts, the bobbing and weaving of the legal departments, then liabilities are established, penalties are assessed, argued, and finally paid, but the damage remains.
But other than going back to a pre-industrial society or going forward to a sci-fi society with technology not yet invented or perfected (and doubtless with its own downsides) what-oh-what are we to do?

Libre said:

the penalties that are imposed are mere slaps on the wrist, and do nothing to reverse the damage - because the damage is irreversible.

Click to expand...

We had one in NSW Australia where they contaminated groundwater with Uranium and other toxic stuff. The punishment? $1500.

I may have missed it, but all I read is opinions. I am looking for hard facts, so that I can make up my mind. (Groundwater) Not oil spills.

This was the first hit I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915095851.htm

Basically, it says that the fracking itself wasn't seen to directly contaminate groundwater, but rather, shoddy techniqiues and lousy containment allowed the natural gas to escape the cement piping and contaminate the water.

That said, the same google search brought up hundreds of thousands of hits, and appeared to be half yes, half no.

I'll also point out that there's beena measured increase of occurrence of earthquakes in areas where fracking has being done. As far as I know, there's been no conlusive study either way on whether or not they're related, but it's an interesting correllation.

Dick7Access said:

I may have missed it, but all I read is opinions. I am looking for hard facts, so that I can make up my mind. (Groundwater) Not oil spills.

Click to expand...

Not only what Froth said, but also the chemicals used in the fracking process can leach into the soil and eventually the groundwater - or so I've heard.
You know Dick, I can appreciate that you want facts and not opinions, but what it usually comes down to, is that the "facts" don't all point clearly in one direction. Some facts support certain opinions, other facts support opposite opinions. If the facts were all pointing one way, there wouldn't be a debate about it. Every advantage is attended by disadvantages. It all depends on your own priorities and agenda. There really are no hard "facts" about anything. You look at the risk/reward ratio and make a stab in the dark. Look at the vaxing debate that is currently raging. I think it's foolhardy not to vaccinate children, but I can't disprove that there is any danger with facts.

Having said that, I have no clue, personally, what the answer to your question is.

Actually, the vaccination 'debate' is a poor choice, as it's based entirely on misrepresentation of facts, exaggerations, and a 30 year old study that was not only proven to be completely falsified but cost the doctor in question his medical license and a decade or two of jail time (due to related fraud and conflict of interest issues).

Similar to evolution, the only people 'debating' vaccinations are people who reject facts in favor of pre-existing beliefs and complete misunderstandings of the science involve (and, for some antivaxxers, scary words).

With frakking, at least, the facts are a lot more complex and open to interpretation.

On the anti-vax debate:
Froth - quoting myself

I think it's foolhardy not to vaccinate children, but I can't disprove that there is any danger with facts.

Click to expand...

I don't think the position can be mounted that the facts prove that vaccinating poses zero risk. The dr that first raised the alarm has been discredited, but what is really SURE in this world? Not that I think they're right, mind you, but all kinds of arguments can be raised - from the one that (rightly) stems from a general distrust of "Big Brother", meaning big pharm, the government, and down to your local doctor. The guy just prescribed me 2 medicines to treat my bronchitis and neither one is doing diddly squat - just like they did diddly squat the last time. So I don't trust these meds but I'm taking them.
But the vaccination question is really much bigger than that.
There's a point to be made that on the macro-level, the human species is made weaker by the constant vaccinations because without them, humans would better develop natural resistance to the diseases as those with lesser immunity would die off - and this goes right in line with the other debate about natural selection and evolution.
Again, it's NOT that I would want my own child to die and thus contribute to the strength of the species as a whole - of course not.
And I DON'T think that, on balance, the anti-vaxers should win the argument - yes they are foolhardy, yes they are subjecting others to risk. BUT - whenever there is a rational debate (I'm not that sure that this is, but I'm not sure that it isn't), if you completely discount one side's position, you are assuming omniscience. There are too many people - college educated, aware of the consequences, on both sides. There's always room for a shade of doubt. That's what makes it so damned hard to learn the truth.

Honestly, I base my arguments on the numbers, when it comes to vaccination.

There are ZERO confirmed cases of vaccine-related autism, and the likelihood of allergic reaction or rejection of any given vaccine is in line with the likelihood of reaction or rejection of any other medicine.

In exchange, we have quite literally eliminated smallpox and rinderpest (other than a few heavily guarded, frozen samples) from the world, and until recently had effectively eliminated measles, mumps, diptheria, typhoid, and polio from the US. Just a couple of comparisons, in 1980, there were 2.6 million deaths annually from measles, while in 2013 there were 96,000 worldwide, none of which were in the US. Pre-vaccine, polio was affecting millions of people a year, where in 2012, there were 223 new cases.

As these are achieved through granting straight-up immunity, I honestly have to disagree with the people who say vaccines 'weaken' humanity. If anything, they strengthen humanity because of the way they work - they force the body to respond as if it were actually under attack, causing the body to develop a defense against that antigen. It would be like saying that someone working out to stay fit is actually weakening themselves because they're not developing their physique through manual labor (such as farming). Generally the people saying that vaccines weaken humanity see vaccines as some drug that fights the disease on its own, when that's not remotely what happens.

I've also seen that virtually all of the people who argue that vaccines weaken us through not allowing the weak to die, strangely, aren't interested in their own children being the ones culled. Funny how that works.

Seriously, with vaccines, there is literally no legitimate, peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting the anti-vaxxer position. (There's lots of stuff based on distortions, words sounding the same, and studies taken out of context, but, well, welcome to the internet, right?) Even climate change, which is only supported by 97% of climate scientists, is more in doubt than vaccination. The efficacy of vaccination is honestly up there with the laws of thermodynamics at this point.

yeah - I can't argue effectively for a hairbrained position like anti-vaccination. I can usually take up almost any losing argument and at least make a run with it, but this time I'm just outgunned by the facts. Damned facts - stupid things like RR said.

Heh, fair enough.

Alas, I have friends who are die-hard anti-vaxxers, so I get to have that argument way too often.

Hey since you guys have highjacked my thread I might as well get in on the fun. When I heard there was controversy I was surprised as when I was in grammar school, (40's, 50's) everybody had to get vaccinated and nobody question it. It must be those right wing nuts. Oh! wait a minute, that's me.

Fracking - you want facts? Probably more than you want to know.
Before becoming a water professional, my experience also included working with professionals for ocean water purification.
Drinking water and water in general is a very emotional subject.
One should be very cautious about any claim. On a different discussion, I can tell you why those stupid carbon filters on the tap water spout should be taken off to beat the company that sold them to you over the head. I supported laws to regulate those in public locations.
As usual, what people should be very concerned about is not looked at, the things that are not a threat is the sensational news item.

Just so someone doesn't Google some wild story - let me tell you why I will pretend to know a little about water.
For over six years (My joke is for Six Years, Six Months, and Six Days - as the number on my forethoughts indicate) I was the State EPA DB Contact for the Colorado area. Difficult to explain all the regulatory aspects of that. Colorado is a Regional area and assisted with other states where fracking is very popular.
I had several specalities. One of them was the Safe Drinking Water Act not to mention ground water, Storm Water, Waste Water plus other related regulatory programs. I also worked iwth the regulatory groups for Oil / Gas permitting, Drinking Water permitting, enforcement, and more. I also worked closely with the Haz data group. One of my projects was the first State to put 22 agencies DB in 3D GIS application for the sole purpose of protecting water. For example, all oil wells or gas stations (even more important - Dry Cleaning stores) were mapped to determine where additional more frequent monitoring should take place.

I also grew up in the Oil / Gas industry. I am no stranger to how all these things actually work. I was not just some guy sitting in some office reading about things. I was part of the JAD Software group in DC at the EPA Headquarters. The Regulations, the Enforcements and even the fines were part of my daily routines.

The regulations and fines span a wide range. For example, a trailer park manager didn't take care of his drinking water treatment. After due laboratory samples and due process, the State and EPA show up with a tow truck and literally yanked the well pipe out of the ground. It wasn't a happy day. First of all, people living in a trailer park are just one step above living in a cardboard box. Take away their water and they basically had no home.
The largest fine in history was when Coors accidently had a big drum of light weigh lubication oil leak on the loading dock. It found its way to the river and killed fish downstream. Let me stress that violations are blind to poor or the large companies.
Did you know that a stolen car dumped into a lake, just the battery's lead will taint all the fish, all of the water used by communities in a huge way. If some punk steals a car, and then dumps it in a lake; shouldn't they go to prison for environmental damage and posioning the children of the community down-stream? In my mind, the answer is yes so long as it was over 20 years.

For years, the Safe Drinking Water Act used a database known as SDWIS (Safe Drinking Water Information System). The EPA had a version called SDWIS/State for States and SDWIS/FED. For just my state, I was responsible for scheduling, processing and receiving over 1 Million drinking water samples a year. These were used for dection and compliance. The samples (a request for a certified laboratory sample) and Result (the laboratory result of that request) are a matter of record. They are loaded up to the EPA SDWIS/FED.
SDWIS/State was a SQL Server back-end (or Oracle) and a custom MS Access front end.

B.T.W. Every State, every sample is public information and can be downloaded from the EPA. I helped with that project because I feel government transparancy is important.
I also applied and received EPA funding to create and hold an XML course for Certified Laboratories. Water Certified Laboratories from arcoss our great country came to several of my courses. The ones in Vail Colorado were wonderful! This allowed for Certified Labs to become much more efficient and timely.
My experience in SDWIS includes working with Drinking Water DBA and managers in most States.

My big database batch job just finished, I will get back to this discussion.
Let me come back with a few facts.
I don't blame people for falling for the silly stuff.
Will Rodgers said: Everyone is ignorant, just in different subjects.

B.T.W. I also worked with the CDC in a related and non-related way. Vaccinations scare me (not saying I don't get them). Please don't get me started on that one.
Lets keep this one on Water and Environment and Fracking.

Regarding the Science Daily article above, the professor from Duke along with the EPA and DOE was part of this presentation. "I know" it is long and detailed.
The most studied incident starts on page 8.
The article shows how this regulated and monitored process protects the resources. It has some great photos, charts and useful information. Yes, it is technical as is the process it describes.
http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/files/stray%20gas%20white%20paper-final(3).pdf

My suggestion for Dick is to pop a top on a cold one, and scan this to read the highlights. You might notice that Private Water Wells (as opposed to a PWS Pubkic Water Supply) are unregulated. A PWS has huge amounts of test run on a regular basis. A private well can have just about anything in it to begin with. Then, as the home draws water, the flow can cause new things to appear later in time.

As anyone can imagine, an owner can claim it was OK until the nighbor showed up.
This article describes how monitoring wells are set up in advance to get a baseline before during and even after the well is abandonded. In accounting it would be a sunk cost (pun).
I have to head out, but hope a few can read this. I will try to help answer any questions. It is just a proven process made in the USA. If you fill your gas tank with Saudi Oil, little to none of this is used. This is a paper related to the USA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/12/colorado-gov-hickenlooper-i-drank-fracking-fluid/

This was in the Denver paper and many other papers. The govonor and thosands of others, drank a shot of pure Fracking Fluid as a public event. Colorado leads the nation in ecology and health.

On my trips to New York City, it is very funny to hear so called experts making all kinds of wild, unfounded claims.

Being from Denver, the number one question for me and my son attending college there is:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4194
It is truly amazing what other wise educated people will beleive.
It isn't a side-rail. This story is actually about equal with the fracking fear.


The EPA has updated the technology so interfaces to the chemical samples with other associated informatin can be downloaded or added into application.
If anyone wants to claim US based fracking has an impact, they should look up the incident here:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/waters/tools/index.cfm

EPA-draft-assessment-finds-no-widespread-harm-to-drinking-water-from-fracturing
This was a very large and detailed (e.g. expensive) study.
I can't personally be pleased with the results. My background with EPA Water would have suddenly been in demand had the study had different results.

But, knowing how things actually work, this is not a surprise result.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2015/06...d-harm-to-drinking-water-from-fracturing.html

As far as the Earthquakes?
There are no permits required for drilling water wells.
The Country (and world) is drilling at an uncontrolled frenzy. If you don't drill, your neighbor will drill and get your water.
These underground water aquifers are being pumped dry at a serious alarming rate. They can't replenish for maybe a century - except for - earthquakes
When the underground cave or aquifer is pumped dry, it can collapse like a empty balloon. This causes earthquakes, sink holes, and massive disturbance much more than oil in tight shale. In oil shale unlike water aquifers, there is nothing to collapse.

The government low interest rate subsidy housing with the opulent swimming pool is so anti-environmental correct. Yet, it is promoted in our strange society's customs and tax policy.

At the moment "fracking" is filling an important position in the US economy.
It will produce enough oil to allow the US to become self sufficient once again, at least for a while.
What should be happening is that the Americans should be taking advantage of this to eliminate the number 1 waste of petroleum. The personal car.
There are many ways to power a car other than gasoline (hydrogen, electric, pure alcohol or natural gas). These are proven methods.
If this would happen, the US would no longer need to import oil and could actually start reducing the money they owe to places like Arabia and China.

I always love the "hydrogen" car engine concept.
My son did a science fair on the subject in high school 7 years ago with all the research.
The book "The Hydrogen Economy" is written by a PhD who heads the majority of the US research. It is an excellent well written book that talks to several levels of education.

If all we look at is the engine somehow finding Hydrogen and burning it, it sounds good.
However, the book openly discusses the billions of dollars required to get there.
For example: Oil and gas can travel down pipelines efficient, safely and cost effective.
Hydrogen has this amazing property to compress, almost infinitesimally. So, when trying push Hydrogen down a pipeline, it just compresses and goes nowhere with out a huge infrastructure of equipment and energy cost.
So, Hydrogen must be delivered by trucks. That alone is very costly. Also, we are talking about extremely compressed hydrogen truck tanks on a highway near you. The statistical odds of a wreck, containment factors, and the rest are somewhat scary.

The other thing the book took to heart is where hydrogen comes from. I thought it might be electrolysis. I had the kid do that in a science fair in middle school. There are two problems. One is that salt is required for water electrolysis. This also breaks down the salt releasing a byproduct of dangerous elements. According to "The Hydrogen Economy" the amount of Hydrogen generated by electrolysis, the least affordable and least efficient system, was less than 0.1%.
Then I was shocked to see where the 99% comes from. It came from cracking petrochemicals or coal! Of course, the byproduct was a huge issue.
So, "The Hydrogen Economy" discussed openly how the Coal Lobby was the biggest supporter of Hydrogen cars. Who would have figured that! Follow the money.
The idea was that when oil reaches $600 a barrel in today's money, hundreds of billions in R&D might get the price of Hydrogen down to $400 a barrel. The assumption was we were running out of oil and that the Coal union would create US jobs.

The following year, the kid got a report by connecting with Tesla cars and a custom helicopter designer. The electric battery technology will most likely replace the Hydrogen car idea. The high performance Tesla car gets equal to 135 MPG when B.T.U. efficiency over Cost is used. The engine with one moving part (including the role of a car's transmission) will last almost forever.
The helicopter design software the kid got allowed him to substituent two Tesla Car motors, helicopter transmission, for a small helicopter. All of the weight and size of the fuel system was replaced with Tesla batteries. The result was over 10,000 less parts to maintain (a huge cost of ownership) and a little less weight.
The problem was the electric helicopter battery would only have enough energy for 12 minute flight. The average 4 person helicopter is 90 minutes with fuel.
However, the new 3D battery technology using of all things, Hydrogen infusion, may increase the lithium battery by 16 times and offer ultra quick charging.
At that point, I predict we will see electric helicopters. The cost of maintenance represents almost 70% of the cost of ownership.

The promise of technology is difficult to predict. When I was a little kid, everything was going to run on Uranium, the wonder element. That included spaceships (rockets).
Then, reality sits in and new technology comes along.

Once we look at the total environmental footprint rather than the political driven agenda, we wonder why we bother reading any of the science predictions.

Rx_ said:

Hydrogen has this amazing property to compress, almost infinitesimally. So, when trying push Hydrogen down a pipeline, it just compresses and goes nowhere with out a huge infrastructure cost...

Click to expand...

I didn't know that!