BobBill

Front Page: "Ban Them!"

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

Yes very stupid...when only a snail trail there to track.

 have another drink, you fat twat.

3 hours ago, VWAP said:

That's a stupid comment though not unexpected

say stupid shit, player..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 7:34 AM, Cruisin Loser said:

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

Cruisin said this being an industry player. Randumb you come up with this shit in reply.

3 hours ago, random said:

tad more than simply water and sand

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scary-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracking-2012-3#btex-compounds-2

 

So there we have it folks, Cruising Loser told us that he has been in the Oil industry for decades and knows his shit.

So given that he also claims that fracking uses only sand water and guar, while the evidence shows that not to be the case ... we can assume one of two things.

Cruising Loser ...

  1. does not know what he is talking about
  2. has lied to his fellow crew mates

Either of those is not good.

Either way he has been

image.png.e239ab6d07ff48b80f05fdf7d1a59edf.png

Randumb your post is a great example of one coming from the right Pyramid of Evidence below who know fuck all.

My guess is Cruisin's long experience (which he articulated) in fracking is location specific and or with kind geology not envolving crazy chemicals and so his comments are quite valid and should not be treated with contempt.

The real issue at hand for the fracking industry in the US is being able to sustain the huge increase in tight oil and gas production levels over the next 20 years they are targeting that I mention upthread without going crazy chemical stuff as they chase long horizontal bore lengths.

Nothing in this world is completely safe and fracking is no exception. This industry needs to get off its arse and justify its existence otherwise it will be closed down if commonsense prevails.

In my mind fracking looks like an energy sovereign play by the US, an opinion I have tried to substantiate upthread and a play arguably that cannot be justified, other than the US trying to cure their balance of trade problems because they fell asleep at the wheel after around 1970. I mention 1970 as in that year the US produced the highest amount of oil in its history and is on the cusp of exceeding it now 50 years later thanks to fracking. 

If fracking is not properly interrogated by others before embarking on a "Ape the US" this fracking stuff for both oil and gas could well end up with no proper risk management a catastrofuck.

The trouble with issues like this is reasonable and inquisitive people like myself in the middle looking for justification and answers are run over by cunts at the extreme. We look to international leaders but what then comes to mind is the leader of the free world wearing a red cap and who has no idea or appreciation of what the word "legacy" means beyond 24hrs.

BTW someone should tell him grabbing pussy was also very 70's along with the glory years of US oil.

IMG_20181014_195129.jpg

images (93).jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, keep it up, very fun. unless you live where fracked! 

I do not "discuss" certain topics. A certain acquaintance told me years ago, Clinton was a dupa for getting a BJ in the WH. She, an Evangelical, loves our pune-grabbing POTUS and Scientology, cause she is selfish. So, I smile and wonder...and let her be herself. 

Why bother? If there was absolute proof no god existed, she'd believe it anyway...no point in pumping "believers", any "believers." Facts are secondary. 

Only deal with things you can change...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say that, but the good officer was more concerned with why the whale was a "buzz-killer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I was supporting you ..clearly I need to dumb down a notch.

my apologies, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrites, this site survives because it rejoices it big white plastic emperors new clothes boats that are an environmental time boom and you criticise the industry that feeds your whims, shame on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 2:34 PM, Cruisin Loser said:

I'm curious how many people here actually have an in-depth understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and have the requisite science/engineering background, including well construction/design and groundwater hydrology, to actually assess for themselves the risks and rewards of "fracking"?

For those who see dangers, what are they? What is the pathway to damage groundwater resources? How does that work, do you think?

What are the "scary chemicals" people talk about?

The EPA did a looong study under the Obama Administration, certainly no friend to oil and gas interests, and could not find a connection between fracking, especially as practiced today, and groundwater pollution.

Perhaps one reason is that it is exceeding rare to find freshwater resources deeper than 2000 feet below surface. Also, due to the need for thermal maturity to cook the keragens from biological decay into oil and  gas, commercial shale deposits are rarely found shallower than 7,000', giving a full mile of vertical separation between the oil and water zones. In some wells in which I have an interest, the water bottoms out at 350 feet, the pay is at 14,000. 2 and 1/2 miles of separation.

A typical fract treatment costs $3-5,000,000 and they are normally run 3 at a time, meaning a capital committment of 9-15 million bucks, excluding the cost of land and of drilling and casing the wellbore. All up cost of a 3 well pad runs $15-21 million exclusive of land costs. 

Fracture treatments which find their way outside of the target zone make no money. Polluting fresh water costs a LOT of money. The entire point of well design and construction is to ensure the treatment goes into the zone you want, and nowhere else, especially fresh water zones. 

Right now I have 10 wells drilling on my lands, and 3 fracking. The 3 fracking are a 24 hour operation that has been going on since September 29 and today is about 1/2 done, stage 30-31 out of 62 stages. We're in for $1.8 million frac cost so far on each well, plus $2 mil each for the drilling. 

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

+1 Thanks for the cogent scientific overview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tink...it is what it is...not as you put it. Sailors are a hair righteous, except a few recyclers and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, vibroman said:

+1 Thanks for the cogent scientific overview

yea that was fkg special, wasn't it?

lest you forget, or conveniently choose to- the planet doesn't give a crap about our hairless monkey 'science', she's the one with no voice who's being forced to take it up the ass getting the short end of the stick for our greed and convenience, and that's the bottom line. tell me that's not 'mother' fucking ('fracking').

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tink said:

Hypocrites, this site survives because it rejoices it big white plastic emperors new clothes boats that are an environmental time boom and you criticise the industry that feeds your whims, shame on you. 

When your finished tinkering with that waterwheel thats powers your house can you please tell me where you buy plantation timber toothbrushes and sheep intestine condoms? Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some bogus stuff being offered. Bogus can be bullroar or can be slanted opinion. What matters is how we affect what it is that allows us to live...

If we cease fracking, so? Like vehicles, there are alternatives. Cannot hurt to try 'em, can it? should have done so years ago but moola and politics trumped the idea. . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

When your finished tinkering with that waterwheel thats powers your house can you please tell me where you buy plantation timber toothbrushes and sheep intestine condoms? Thanks.

Jack if you really want them:

PLTNew.jpg

http://www.powerspout.com/

toothbrushadult_LRG.jpg

https://www.lifewithoutplastic.com/store/ca/set-of-10-plastic-free-wooden-toothbrushes-for-adults.html

Natural_lamb2_10ct_Front.png?h=540&la=en

http://www.trojanbrands.com/en/condoms/TROJAN-Naturalamb-Luxury-Condoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I was supporting you ..clearly I need to dumb down a notch.

Stoopid is as stooopid does 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobBill said:

Some bogus stuff being offered. Bogus can be bullroar or can be slanted opinion. What matters is how we affect what it is that allows us to live...

If we cease fracking, so? Like vehicles, there are alternatives. Cannot hurt to try 'em, can it? should have done so years ago but moola and politics trumped the idea. . 

Easier said than done.. we are all hooked up to the barrel including Governments. In the UK if you put £50 worth of fuel in your car you have just given them £30.

DhlbZUyUwAIJgP3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BobBill said:

No, keep it up, very fun. unless you live where fracked! 

I do not "discuss" certain topics. A certain acquaintance told me years ago, Clinton was a dupa for getting a BJ in the WH. She, an Evangelical, loves our pune-grabbing POTUS and Scientology, cause she is selfish. So, I smile and wonder...and let her be herself. 

Why bother? If there was absolute proof no god existed, she'd believe it anyway...no point in pumping "believers", any "believers." Facts are secondary. 

Only deal with things you can change...

If they can rationalize an imaginary friend in the sky, they can rationalize anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame it all on the son of a Greek goat herder.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/business/george-mitchell-a-pioneer-in-hydraulic-fracturing-dies-at-94.html

This vid from a fracking crowd called Marathon Oil Corp based in Texas with world wide interests shows it is no easy process and maybe a bit safer than it really is.

https://www.marathonoil.com

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

When your finished tinkering with that waterwheel thats powers your house can you please tell me where you buy plantation timber toothbrushes and sheep intestine condoms? Thanks.

Interesting you mention the sheep intestine condoms.

If it weren’t for the British, we’d have never had them. 

They saw the Muslims using them. 

The only difference was that the British  removed the intestines from the sheep first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 3to1 said:

yea that was fkg special, wasn't it?

lest you forget, or conveniently choose to- the planet doesn't give a crap about our hairless monkey 'science', she's the one with no voice who's being forced to take it up the ass getting the short end of the stick for our greed and convenience, and that's the bottom line. tell me that's not 'mother' fucking ('fracking').

 

Tsk Tsk ! In today's society, should we not be more gender neutral when considering  the planet? Assuming of course that the planet has the ability reason and "give a crap" but lets' not let science get in the way of emotional argument

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vibroman said:

..but lets' not let science get in the way of emotional argument

...not to mention economics..starting with Mitchell the fracking pioneer turning $6m into $2.3 billion. Pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vibroman said:

Tsk Tsk ! In today's society, should we not be more gender neutral when considering  the planet? Assuming of course that the planet has the ability reason and "give a crap" but lets' not let science get in the way of emotional argument

stfu you goofy pedant clown, you know exactly what I was stating, but it's probably a slap in the face of your poisonous ideology. it was a very general summation based on simple reality, emotion (your word) was irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like around 80-90 percent of the planet will be able to buy clean water at an inflated rate with all their petrochemical dollars made during fracturing. Sorry just kidding that would only work if trickle down economics actually worked. Maybe this will become a new tactical thing on inland lakes where you have to sail round the on fire areas of the lake. Screw foiling this will add the excitement dimension that your average puddle sailor is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 1:32 PM, Sailabout said:

Not to mention gas, I read that by 2020 it (US) might be up there with Australia as 2 or 3rd largest exporter in the world.

Sail that is an interesting scenario, starting with the US already being the worlds largest gas producer by a country mile (see graph below) offset by being the world's largest domestic consumer. Don't forget Aust is a big exporter and a minisule consumer of gas.

I will combine my reply with this post by Miff re gas versus coal which is on the money and which not too many people appreciate. As shown in the pie diagram below as at 2015 the utilisation of gas for power generation in the US has risen to 35%.

On 10/13/2018 at 5:30 AM, Miffy said:

I don't particularly like fracking - but fracking for natural gas has basically eliminated the long term investment of coal power plants in the United States, and basically made up a large part of the carbon emission reduction since 2008.
  
A reliable, cost effective and sustainable national energy grid looks different depending on what each country is working with?....

And finish off where I left it here.

On 10/14/2018 at 11:06 AM, jack_sparrow said:

Now that is just oil via fracking, gas is another box of monkeys but with very much the same flavour.

and here.

On 10/14/2018 at 2:41 PM, jack_sparrow said:

The United States, Canada, China, and Argentina are currently the only four countries in the world that are producing commercial volumes of either fracked gas or crude oil. The United States is clearly the dominant producer of both shale gas and tight oil and Canada is the only other country to produce both.

The simple fact of life is that along with oil as I have shown upthread, the US is now the world's dominant player in gas production. This is solely courtesy of fracking and it is a relatively recent phenomena that not too many people appreciate is US centric and will drive the US energy source agenda for the next quarter of a century.

In less than 10 years fracked/shale gas in the US has risen to be around 50% of total gas production as shown in the table below (showing where it comes from) and will continue into the foreseeable future.

To answer Sails export observation the US's natural gas production growth courtesy of fracking has outpacing the growth in domestic consumption. The US one of the world's largest consumers is already now or positioned to be a net exporter of natural gas. The US is already or about to be a major force of disruption to global gas markets. That is good.

Like Miff I'm not a great fan of cracking gas, but the US by embracing it thanks to a free market economy, regulation good or bad and a entrepreneural spirit is delivering up some pluses for the world economicaly and environmentally missed by many.

The US by fracking gas has not just saved its own arse, but has arguably bought the world around another 30 years (which isn't long) it doesn't deserve to get its shit together about casting off fossil fuels for electricity production.

 

saupload_blog180807n.png

images (92).jpeg

Graph 1 - U.S. Shale Gas Production by Play.png

Graph 17 - U.S. Natural Gas Exports and Imports.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of talk here about the USA and I'm not sure it is very relevant. AFAIK the fussing and fighting about Ineos and fracking is all about what they want to do in the UK, actually even more specifically, in England. US population density 97 per square mile. England 1010 per mile. Not really the same discussion when it comes to mineral extraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Lots of talk here about the USA and I'm not sure it is very relevant.

Try reading upthread before posting shit ...and as you go for the "I'm not sure" escape and which is code for "lazy fucker", fracking is largely US centric and is relevant..hope you can read a graph at least with full explanation from upthread if inclined.

main.png.5ddc9e48233896093d2944056a537a29.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you just added this to your post, maybe to dilute my instant reply??

1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

, ...actually even more specifically, in England. US population density 97 per square mile. England 1010 per mile. Not really the same discussion when it comes to mineral extraction

You are on money there..

On 10/14/2018 at 2:41 PM, jack_sparrow said:

As shown in the post upthread a large portion of tight oil production is coming from the South Western Eagle Ford and Permian basins and northern Bakken Shale region. That shows a concentration of production and therefore concentrated not widespread potential impacts, though there are clearly other sources throughout the US.

But clearly you are still missing the overall picture about fracking and the FP... the fussing and fighting about Ineos is something the Ed has grasped hold of knowing shit about his own country's place (like you) on the world fracking stage and worse still listening to one side of the debate to then go murder a major sailing sponsor who are like rockinghorse shit.

Fucking brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 11:34 AM, 3to1 said:

ainslie should find another sponsor...

 

On 10/14/2018 at 12:55 PM, Russell Brown said:

I would like to say that I have very much respect for the editor's public stance on environmental and political issues. It takes balls to say it how you see it.

I grabbed those two quotes above with this in mind;

It is regarded an Editor is the person who is in charge of a publication and determines the final content largely to attract a audience of similiar views. So with this in mind the Editors views were this.

http://sailinganarchy.com/2018/10/12/we-agree/

The Ed says 

"Anyone who has done any research into fracking at all, knows it is an unnecessary, destructive and alarmingly harmful “technology”, used to blast even more oil out of our already horrifically abused planet.

So yes we think that, given that Ineos, a company that is such a large player in the dirty business of fracking is a major sponsor in a sport that should accept advertising from virtually anybody but companies like this is simply not right.

Environment groups are calling for the sponsor of Sir Ben Ainslie’s Portsmouth-based sailing team to be banned from the America’s Cup. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth say raw plastic material manufacturer Ineos is “environmentally destructive”.

The Ed did a unmarked PS at the end with regard to this thread when it appeared some thought otherwise.

"And there is a thread, where sailing cavemen are singing the praises of fracking. Holy fuck are we one dumb collective motherfucking people…"

Clearly the Ed has absolutely no idea the US and hence himself are the world's best, if not only mother frackers going as I have articulated up thread. I did so trying to articulate some middle ground on a major world wide economic and environmental issue and not being a fuckin caveman.

Make you your own call, but for the Ed to tear the balls off the largest individual sponsor in world sailing and over a subject he clearly knows shit about sitting in a glasshouse seems like a really dumb fuck editorial move to me.

Worse still it sends a signal to other potential sponsors of this sport to be wary that this loony fuckin SA mob will bite the hand they feed off without proper examination, no matter their credentials.

Thanks Scott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Easier said than done.. we are all hooked up to the barrel including Governments. In the UK if you put £50 worth of fuel in your car you have just given them £30.

DhlbZUyUwAIJgP3.jpeg

Looks like sailing really needs all that oil to keep it running, think of the sails dumped in land fill every year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout....why not plan on changing..., not like a "fished out" area?

We are capable of dealing with it.

Which reminds me of the question I have always asked those who say "global warming" is a hoax...: So what if we who say it is not a hoax are wrong? What if you are wrong?

Same crappola, different plate(s)!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hydraulic frakking consists of drilling into sedimentary basins deep below the earths surface .  These basins are full of gas or oil......so it's absurd to contemplate pollution or poisoning aquifers or burning lakes.  The basin is already full of petroleum, you cannot pollute it.....and they are sealed off from aquifers by hundreds or even thousands of feet of non porous soil and rock. 

The frakk' consists of shocking the sediment with a shot of sand and water to loosen the sediment so that the oil or gas can flow between the sedimentary particles more easily into the production pipe.  A frakk' is not an explosion. It is nowhere near powerful enough to shift the bedrock layers that trapped the gas and particles within the basin. Furthermore the frakk' is delivered in the center of the basin . The sediment absobs all of the force of the frakk' . It shakes up the sediment near the pipe but the sediment (think of particles of pea stone and sand) absorbs the shock and it gets weaker near the outer edges of the basin.  The thought of lakes of fire and polluted surface aquifers resulting from frakking activity are science fiction. 

There are chemical additives added to the frakk' but these are sent deep down into petroleum filled basins deep away from contact with water or agriculture resources. In contrast we have hundreds of thousands of waste sites on the surface or in pits which are on the levels with our aquifers into which tens of millions of gallons of industrial and residential pollutants are poured every year, and barges of waste are emptied into our oceans.  Never mind the carbon fumes emitted by gas guzzling overweight luxury Land Rovers. 

If we want to save our planet, please let us aim at the right target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IPLore said:

Hydraulic frakking consists of drilling into sedimentary basins deep below the earths surface .  These basins are full of gas or oil......so it's absurd to contemplate pollution or poisoning aquifers or burning lakes.  The basin is already full of petroleum, you cannot pollute it.....and they are sealed off from aquifers by hundreds or even thousands of feet of non porous soil and rock. 

 

You are a geologist? I thought you were a lawyer.

There is an geological report on southern England written by actual geologists and what you describe as "absurd" is found to be a risk in some areas. Not in others. But those who have evaluated the risk and put their professional names to it do not find it to be "absurd" or a subject for generalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IPLore said:

The thought of lakes of fire and polluted surface aquifers resulting from frakking activity are science fiction. 

You sir are a fucking lying clown.  See below.  I have fished in that part of that river years ago.  There was no gas bubbling out then or anytime before fracking started.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IPLore said:

...so it's absurd to contemplate pollution or poisoning aquifers or burning lakes...The thought of lakes of fire and polluted surface aquifers resulting from frakking activity are science fiction. 

It has happened and those responsible in some cases have been hit with environmental restitution notices and pollution penalties.

Your are no different than the fracking anitichrist loonies who preech doom and gloom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IPLore said:

Hydraulic frakking consists of drilling into sedimentary basins deep below the earths surface .  These basins are full of gas or oil......so it's absurd to contemplate pollution or poisoning aquifers or burning lakes.  The basin is already full of petroleum, you cannot pollute it.....and they are sealed off from aquifers by hundreds or even thousands of feet of non porous soil and rock. 

The frakk' consists of shocking the sediment with a shot of sand and water to loosen the sediment so that the oil or gas can flow between the sedimentary particles more easily into the production pipe.  A frakk' is not an explosion. It is nowhere near powerful enough to shift the bedrock layers that trapped the gas and particles within the basin. Furthermore the frakk' is delivered in the center of the basin . The sediment absobs all of the force of the frakk' . It shakes up the sediment near the pipe but the sediment (think of particles of pea stone and sand) absorbs the shock and it gets weaker near the outer edges of the basin.  The thought of lakes of fire and polluted surface aquifers resulting from frakking activity are science fiction. 

There are chemical additives added to the frakk' but these are sent deep down into petroleum filled basins deep away from contact with water or agriculture resources. In contrast we have hundreds of thousands of waste sites on the surface or in pits which are on the levels with our aquifers into which tens of millions of gallons of industrial and residential pollutants are poured every year, and barges of waste are emptied into our oceans.  Never mind the carbon fumes emitted by gas guzzling overweight luxury Land Rovers. 

If we want to save our planet, please let us aim at the right target. 


Like I said before - I'm not against fracking and natural gas has helped us reduce reliance on coal.

That being said? I don't think you understand the environmental impact of poorly done fracking and gas production.

When a site is being surveyed for drilling opportunities - if avoidable, they're not going to go thru the town's water reservoir or thru salt caverns/bedded salt formations. If there's a blowout, the potential to contaminate people's drinking water with brine or dissolve enough salt & cause subsidence is a real possibility.

Then there's the production phase - fracking is very wet. The gas typically comes out with enough brine that if you were to dump it without treatment into a river, you'll turn it into brackish water and have significant environmental impact on the wildlife as well as municipalities downstream that rely on the river sediment wells for drinking water.

If you make the business decision to dispose of the brine by pressurized injection - do it above the capacity of the underground geology? You might cause a bit of regional structural damage and cause some earthquakes. 

There's this silly dichotomized "ban them vs yah it is completely safe" view that gets repeated over and over again in the US - but like most things in real life, the reality is a little more complicated. Just like nuclear energy - it can be done right, or it can be a clusterfuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry....I do not want to be associated with the "yah it is completely safe" crowd.

Oil and gas extraction requires high safety standards and environmental protocols. I have posted elsewhere that the biggest environmental threat is not the frack itself but the disposal of the produced water.  So I agree with that post.

However my stance is that unconventional tight oil and gas (frakking shale) is safer environmentally for our oceans than offshore conventional and that "done right",  gas is the cleanest and safest source of carbon energy  .      If you want to single out a culprit, look no further than the tar sand developments in Canada.

 

The lawyers are all over this. We have the wealthiest, most skilled, well resourced plaintiff bar in the world.  They (Im not a class action lawyer)  would love to find a major frakking suit. The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a major successful case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, random said:

You sir are a fucking lying clown.  See below.  I have fished in that part of that river years ago.  There was no gas bubbling out then or anytime before fracking started.

 

This is exactly the sort of fairy tale science fiction that I was talking about.

If you want to study the actual causes of the Methane seeps in the Condamine river this might help

.GISERA_MethaneSeepsCondamineRiver-2017-03.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, IPLore said:

They (Im not a class action lawyer)  would love to find a major frakking suit. The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a case.

You sir are a lying fucking clown, either that or you have no idea what you are talking about ... you choose.

As fracking lawsuits draw to a close, a look back at what happened in Dimock

Fracking Lawsuit: California Sues Trump Administration

image.png.a677bfced01026423f16ebc53783ab82.png

image.png.8184a5b95fba958aaf4e1fbf85995936.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IPLore said:

This is exactly the sort of fairy tale science fiction that I was talking about.

If you want to study the actual causes of the Methane seeps in the Condamine river this might help

.GISERA_MethaneSeepsCondamineRiver-2017-03.pdf

Oh really?   So have you actually been there?  I fucking well have.  I know those people, I have spent al lot of time in that area and no one had ever seen gas bubbling out of the river before fracking started.  No one, ever!

The “CSIRO” scientist quoted in thatGuardian story is Damian Barrett. Now he is actually a director with GISERA the Gas Industry Social and Environmental research Alliance.

GISERA is simply a CSG industry PR front, somewhat similar to the Minerals Council of Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, random said:

Oh really?   So have you actually been there?  I fucking well have.  I know those people, I have spent al lot of time in that area and no one had ever seen gas bubbling out of the river before fracking started.  No one, ever!

 

I find the independent federally funded report and date more convincing than you. Sorry about that. Others can read the report and make up their own minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IPLore said:

I find the independent federally funded report and date more convincing than you. Sorry about that. Others can read the report and make up their own minds.

Oh yeah?  I find personally visiting the area and talking to the people who live there pretty fucking convincing.

Then you could read a report produced by people who have their wages paid by the people doing the fracking!

What is GISERA?

The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) is an alliance agreement between the five biggest unconventional gas companies in Australia (Australia Pacific LNG, Origin Energy, QGC, AGL and Santos) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Conflict of interest:

The five main Queensland gas companies provide over half of of GISERA’s funding. GISERA now also revieves funding from federal and state governments. Government funding has made up 23 percet of GISERA’s funding to date.

smoking.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Oh yeah?  I find personally visiting the area and talking to the people who live there pretty fucking convincing.

Then you could read a report produced by people who have their wages paid by the people doing the fracking!

What is GISERA?

The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) is an alliance agreement between the five biggest unconventional gas companies in Australia (Australia Pacific LNG, Origin Energy, QGC, AGL and Santos) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Conflict of interest:

The five main Queensland gas companies provide over half of of GISERA’s funding. GISERA now also revieves funding from federal and state governments. Government funding has made up 23 percet of GISERA’s funding to date.

 

Good Grief.

The report was not produced by GISERA ...it was produced by CSIRO....Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO is  an independent  Australian Federal government agency responsible for scientific research. Its chief role is to improve the economic and social performance of industry for the benefit of the community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO

Try reading the report. Seriously. Give science a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Oil and gas extraction requires high safety standards and environmental protocols. 

There are countless reports like this that indicate otherwise. The industry is fucking itself by ignoring reality.

http://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Fractured-Communities-FINAL-September-2010.pdf

27 minutes ago, IPLore said:

I have posted elsewhere that the biggest environmental threat is not the frack itself but the disposal of the produced water.  So I agree with that post.

That is like saying making breakfast only involves cooking toast not spreading the butter. A single fracking well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that resurfaces after a week or so and is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium that can't be treated.

36 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The lawyers are all over this. ...BUT , so far, the science does not support a case.

It is not the absence of science styming legal action. It is a combination of a relatively young industry that has gone through the roof, regulstory oversight has not kept pace, some environmental laws are subject to exemption and many regulatory reports studying things like the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources etc have yet to be finalised, but in preliminary form don't paint a rosy picture. 

That aside to say nothing is wrong until there is legal action is about as dumb as it gets.

The industry and blinkered souls like yourself are doing a great job of converting many people who either supportive of or ambivilant to fracking into opponents. That is not very smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to wade into this shit.... so y’all know, until very recently I was a drilling engineer for Schlumberger, and there is a wealth of disinformation in regards hydraulic fracturing in this thread, beginning with the ‘water and sand’ remarks. That shit is funny. 

Wanna learn about how frac’ing is done? Start at spe.org

-oh, and the subject will be under the ‘completion’ heading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Good Grief.

The report was not produced by GISERA ...it was produced by CSIRO....Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO is  an independent  Australian Federal government agency responsible for scientific research. Its chief role is to improve the economic and social performance of industry for the benefit of the community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO

Try reading the report. Seriously. Give science a chance.

You sir are a lying fucking clown, you are not stupid you are a fucking liar prepared to lie about what you posted not that long ago.

So it was produced by CSIRO?  Yeah?  I guess that's why the link you posted starts with  .... wait for it ...

GISERA_MethaneSeepsCondamineRiver-2017-03.pdf

tenor.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Try reading the report. Seriously. Give science a chance

Report has nothing to do with fracking. It is about coal seam gas and in a location which daylights???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

That is like saying making breakfast only involves cooking toast not spreading the butter. A single fracking well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that resurfaces after a week or so and is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium that can't be treated.

 

 

Jack,

1.  Your discourse and debate is sensible .  You make good points (unlike the poster of rivers on fire) that requires a response..  My response is not trying to disagree with you....but explain my position on Ineos in sailing.

2. I agree that you cannot complete an unconventional well without creating large amounts of post frack water. I mentioned this issue in another thread.  There is plenty of scope for this post frack water to pose environmental hazards.  However this hyperbole that frakking creates earthquakes, burning rivers and is environmentally unsafe per se is largely nonsense. Large portions of industry have to be subject to environmental protection laws because they produce hazardous waste.  There are good ways of dealing with post frack water and bad ways.   Probably the best way is to recycle.  

3. So until someone demonstrates that Ineos supports environmentally bad ways of dealing with post frack water, Im prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt as a sponsor of sailing. I am not against frakking.....in the same way as I am not against the manufacturing of steel. I am against those that do either in such a way as to pollute the planet. 

4. I would be surprised if they wanted to dump post frack water in the aquifers. I would be surprised if they support bad environmental practices. After all, at one time they were major investors in biofuels from waste.

This thread was about Ineos. I havent seen anything to suggest that they are the bogeyman that ED suggests. Randumb's posts of burning rivers are just that. Dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Report It has nothing to do with fracking. It is about coal seam gas.

Yup.

So the mystery is ......If Randumb cannot read or write, how is he responding to these posts?  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IPLore said:

Yup.

So the mystery is ......If Randumb cannot read or write, how is he responding to these posts?  :wacko:

Hahahah  I fucked you over mate.  Deal with it.

BTW, you haven't got back to me on the "The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a case. "

tenor.gif?itemid=10869803

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

You sir are a lying fucking clown, either that or you have no idea what you are talking about ... you choose.

As fracking lawsuits draw to a close, a look back at what happened in Dimock

Fracking Lawsuit: California Sues Trump Administration

image.png.a677bfced01026423f16ebc53783ab82.png

image.png.8184a5b95fba958aaf4e1fbf85995936.png

Jack.....

Regarding the relevance of our (The US) legal system. The plaintiff bar moves very quickly and frakking is no longer young in the USA.  Tobacco, environmental hazards, faulty medical devices etc......the plaintiff bar files suits well before regulations catch up.

Dumb posted a partial list of tort suits vs companies involved in the frakking industry.

On his list. 26 cases  were dismissed (the Plaintiff lost!). Only 2 cases that went to court were found in favor of the plaintiff.

The first was nothing to do with fracking's environmental hazard. In Alford vs East Gas Ohio, Alford's complaint was about the noise disturbance to his trailer home from a nearby compressor run by an oil and gas operator.

The second was Hiser vs XTO . Ruby Hiser alleged that her home had been damaged by vibrations from nearby drilling activity. When the jury asked if there was hydraulic frakking, the judge instructed the jury that this was not relevant to their decision because no evidence had been presented whether it was conventional or unconventional drilling.   The case nearly got thrown out on appeal because there was some discussion in the jury room as to whether the drilling was associated with frakking activity or not. XTO claimed this discussion may have been prejudicial to their defense.  On appeal, the higher court ruled that the jury had not been influenced by whether the drilling was related to frakking or not.

Two cases which went through court bear mentioning where the plaintiffs lost.

1. Dumber highlighted the Dimock case. It lasted 8 years and was well funded. In the end the court ruled against the plaintiff stating that scant evidence was rebutted by expert scientific testimony.

2. Kamuck vs Shell Energy. The plaintiff's case that Hydraulic Frakking constituted "engaging in an ultra hazardous activity" was dismissed

 

I hope that answers RD's questions as to why the Plaintiff Bar is veering away from this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IPLore said:

Jack,

1.  Your discourse and debate is sensible .  You make good points 

Thanks.

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

...So until someone demonstrates that Ineos supports environmentally bad ways of dealing with post frack water, Im prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt as a sponsor of sailing. ..

This thread was about Ineos. I havent seen anything to suggest that they are the bogeyman that ED suggests.

I agree. However Ineos like many players in many industries are sometimes their own worst enemy when it comes to engaging with the public and getting them onside. 

For instance this is from their own Q&A where they completely ignore the subject of waste water creation, potential contamination above and below ground and their approach to dealing with it. 

WHAT ABOUT WATER CONTAMINATION?

These wells are between 1 and 5 kilometres below the surface, far beneath the aquifer. They should be designed to prevent contamination.

The rare examples of water contamination in the US were caused by issues such as poor well design, poor disposal of process water and poor capping of wells at the end of useful production; none of which will occur in the UK, because of the development of the technology; lessons learned from the US and the strict regulatory regime that will be in place control the shale gas industry. 

 

Now you can probably get away with saying that nonsense fracking away in the middle of nowhere in say the US Sth West. But in the middle of UK countryside???

Treating a heavily populated region as dumb fucks now means they have to contend with a trillion protest groups and active blockades on their sites. That is a lot of war zones. That leads to political pressure, legislative and legal responses that may not have a happy ending. Their sponsorship of the county's AC pinup boy is obviously one thing in their basket of measures to counter that.

Their core message is the obvious one being UK manufacturing has halved in 20 years largely through uncompetitive energy costs (which is rubbish) and without shale gas industry will cease to exist in the UK. The other is obviously domestic use and consumer gas pricing. So in the end it is that and indicating oversight by the regulator watching their every move is what the public can be reassured by. 

Is this enough to get them over the line? I suspect ultimately the Brexit theme and copying Trumps line of making the UK great again resonates with a lot of people and that may well be their saviour.

pnr-marriott-link.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 8:24 PM, 3to1 said:

unless you're joking, that's offensive and you're human garbage.

So i take it you use 0 petroleum? good. More for us. 

If powering and feeding the globe is offensive then I'm happy to keep offending people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Regarding the relevance of our (The US) legal system. The plaintiff bar moves very quickly and frakking is no longer young in the USA. 

My industry age reference was more relative to the quantum of activity over just the last decade. Until this thread started I had very little appreciation about the source of the US's huge jump in oil and gas supply. Also how nimble they were in reducing costs to a point OPEC's normal response of flooding supply / price reduction didn't bite until a point OPEC were feeling more pain than gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Jack.....

Regarding the relevance of our (The US) legal system. The plaintiff bar moves very quickly and frakking is no longer young in the USA.  Tobacco, environmental hazards, faulty medical devices etc......the plaintiff bar files suits well before regulations catch up.

Dumb posted a partial list of tort suits vs companies involved in the frakking industry.

On his list. 26 cases  were dismissed (the Plaintiff lost!). Only 2 cases that went to court were found in favor of the plaintiff.

The first was nothing to do with fracking's environmental hazard. In Alford vs East Gas Ohio, Alford's complaint was about the noise disturbance to his trailer home from a nearby compressor run by an oil and gas operator.

The second was Hiser vs XTO . Ruby Hiser alleged that her home had been damaged by vibrations from nearby drilling activity. When the jury asked if there was hydraulic frakking, the judge instructed the jury that this was not relevant to their decision because no evidence had been presented whether it was conventional or unconventional drilling.   The case nearly got thrown out on appeal because there was some discussion in the jury room as to whether the drilling was associated with frakking activity or not. XTO claimed this discussion may have been prejudicial to their defense.  On appeal, the higher court ruled that the jury had not been influenced by whether the drilling was related to frakking or not.

Two cases which went through court bear mentioning where the plaintiffs lost.

1. Dumber highlighted the Dimock case. It lasted 8 years and was well funded. In the end the court ruled against the plaintiff stating that scant evidence was rebutted by expert scientific testimony.

2. Kamuck vs Shell Energy. The plaintiff's case that Hydraulic Frakking constituted "engaging in an ultra hazardous activity" was dismissed

 

I hope that answers RD's questions as to why the Plaintiff Bar is veering away from this.

 

 

You sir are a lying cunt.

But but but ... you said ..

"The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a case. "

image.png.c960e7cf3869f2b2b82a70667a24db7b.png

5 Communities that Pushed Back Against Fracking - and Won

It's a shame you aren't better at this, it's too easy

6db55c90ef709c58a3fa46aaf957ebecee8d9493

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

You sir are a lying cunt.

But but but ... you said ..

"The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a case. "

Randumb @IPLore was referring to cases for damages. All the ones you mention are directed at successfully securing moratoriums and no go areas. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

You sir are a lying cunt.

But but but ... you said ..

"The defendants would be the wealthiest plums on the tree and the juries would be sympathetic  BUT , so far, the science does not support a major successful case. "

image.png.c960e7cf3869f2b2b82a70667a24db7b.png

 

I did say that. And this picture proves what?  

That juries would be sympathetic or unsympathetic?????

Damn.....I fear you are not listening carefully to the person who is helping you read the posts 

750988053_Randumbtryingtoread.jpg.59071bb8647d2f3704e71d1dbeee1223.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the guy who lies about who produced a report he cited.  Why should he stop there?

Evidence against his bullshit is all over the net.

image.png.80d879817816c293d0bef9c4ba329af9.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

This is the guy who lies about who produced a report he cited.  Why should he stop there?

Evidence against his bullshit is all over the net.

image.png.80d879817816c293d0bef9c4ba329af9.png

 

 

Both of those were PDEP cases which meant that the drillers had failed to comply with regulations of some form.

These were NOT plaintiff bar cases claiming that fracking in itself was harmful.

In both cases the operator was allowed to continue......presumably subject to settlement terms specifying compliance with regulations.

There will be plaintiff cases....and Im sure that some will eventually be successful in some small way...but this is nothing like the major cases that were launched for tobacco and medical devices. Fracking is widespread in the US. If there was strong evidence to support that it was harmful per se, we would see law firms advertising on TV.

Welcome to the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IPLore said:

Both of those were PDEP cases which meant that the drillers had failed to comply with regulations of some form.

These were NOT plaintiff bar cases claiming that fracking in itself was harmful.

In both cases the operator was allowed to continue......presumably subject to settlement terms specifying compliance with regulations.

Of course, fracking is good for the environment hahahhah

1.The action by PDEP was related to claims that 19 resident families’ water wells were allegedly affected by methane contamination as a result of nearby drilling activities.

2. Under the settlement, Chesapeake agreed to pay a $900,000 penalty for alleged contamination of the water supply and an additional $188,000 for violations regarding unrelated tank fires.

It was so good for the environment that the companies paid for the damages out of the goodness of their little hearts.

Contamination is good for us!  Fracking didn't actually do it, it's a coincidence!!!

1347512849696.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

Of course, fracking is good for the environment hahahhah

1.The action by PDEP was related to claims that 19 resident families’ water wells were allegedly affected by methane contamination as a result of nearby drilling activities.

2. Under the settlement, Chesapeake agreed to pay a $900,000 penalty for alleged contamination of the water supply and an additional $188,000 for violations regarding unrelated tank fires.

It was so good for the environment that the companies paid for the damages out of the goodness of their little hearts.

Contamination is good for us!  Fracking didn't actually do it, it's a coincidence!!!

 

I am not qualified to help Randumb.

Randumb.jpg.68c8233dbf3e97d91453c2e60e820ae3.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what drives me crazy is that none of the people decrying fracing have any idea of how it works or what is actually going on when they do it. 

First off, methane contamination in the water table is very often naturally occurring. Methane (SWAMP GAS/YOUR FARTS) is literally everywhere in the environment. So I am not impressed by people lighting their tap water on fire in a movie. If you live i a rural area and your taps come from a private well it could very easily have methane in it.

Well water is drawn usually between 100-300 feet deep. Fracing is done at 10,000+ feet. most often.

its possible that a fraced well could contaminate well water. it would have to have cracked casing and cement at the same footage, but they dont want to lose production. They dont want to be losing product in the well and they dont want lawsuits, this is not normal operations. A loss of flowback in the well is a big deal and taken very seriously. 

and haters, unless you ride a bike everywhere and grow all of your own food, kiss my ass.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark Set said:

So i take it you use 0 petroleum? good. More for us. 

If powering and feeding the globe is offensive then I'm happy to keep offending people.

but see, there's this weird catch, it ain't all about humans, now is it (unless you're a raging Asshole).

it's the ultimate moral 'quandary' you gluttonous fk wit, see how that works? 

kiss my ass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Set said:

Well water is drawn usually between 100-300 feet deep. Fracing is done at 10,000+ feet. most often.

Mark there are too many generalisation  floating around and being put forward by all sides of the debate to support their opinion. For instance you have noted one.

However shallow fracturing does occur and is more widespread than many think particularly in the Rocky Mountains region, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana and California. In California over half the fracking is done at less than 2,000 feet.

Source: Environmental Science & Technology 2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But significantly deeper than 300 right?

I understand that casing failures can lead to ground water issues but what is the risk of fractured casing? remembering that risk is defined as probability x consequence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3to1 said:

but see, there's this weird catch, it ain't all about humans, now is it (unless you're a raging Asshole).

it's the ultimate moral 'quandary' you gluttonous fk wit, see how that works? 

kiss my ass.

 

ok so youre still getting around on the back of my work it sounds like. good on you. all my best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now