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
3 hours ago, 3to1 said:

 have another drink, you fat twat.

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

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

Bob may I suggest an economy of words, all you needed to have said was.."I inhaled and didn't see the Stop sign".

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

Never mind. I looked upthread...

 

damn it

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. 

  • Like 2

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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

  • Like 1

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
6 hours ago, IPLore said:

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.


One of the key reasons behind this plaintiff delay is the relatively short timeline attached to the huge increase in fracking thoughout the US in the last decade and regulatory oversight and impact assessment not keeping pace to assist substantiate claims. Remember it took a long time before big tobacco took a serious hit.

It might surprise some to learn that it took Congress as late as 2010 to instruct the EPA to get off its arse and finalise a "Study of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources"

Believe it or not that Study was not finalised until December 2016, less than two years ago.

https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy

However all the EPA says is hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas poses a risk to drinking water in some circumstances, but a lack of information precludes a definitive statement on how severe the risk is. So both industry and the public have had to wait nearly a decade for a report that takes pains to avoid drawing any conclusions???

The EPA's response to that critisism is by saying "the report provides valuable information about potential vulnerabilities to drinking water resources, but was not designed to be a list of documented impacts"

However now the really interesting bit in connection with this.

The Final Study removed a finding from a draft issued the year before in 2015 indicating that fracking has "not caused widespread, systemic harm to drinking water in the United States". This is the subject of the news bulletins video prepared by an Industry Group below.

Industry didn't believe their luck with this and could be excused for marching on regardless and looking to have previously quarantined areas opened up.

So what the US now has to deal with is an Industry that hails this draft finding (but now removed) as proof that fracking is safe, while environmentalists and impacted communities have seized on identification of cases where fracking-related activities has polluted drinking water. No wonder this debate has some heat.

The biggest problem the EPA has today is examples are being unhearthed where the EPA and State overseer's got it plain wrong. For example a former EPA scientist DiGiulio and co author Jackson issued a peer reviewed study in March 2016 proving that the entire Wind River Basin (Wyoming) water resource is contaminated with chemicals linked to hydraulic fracturing that had migrated directly into the aquifer through these manmade fractures and waste water storage.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04970

While monitoring wells were subject to testing by the EPA and the State, (ironicaly where the EPA initialy expressed concerns but stepped back), it seems compounds used for hydraulic fracturing were being analysed by regular not specialised testing techniques and were either missed or wrongly quantified in terms of safe water quality. DiGiulio and his colleagues devised new procedures, using high-performance liquid chromatography etc for methane and other chemicals as a means of substantiating their findings. 

The interesting thing about this catastrofuck of policy and regulatory making and or oversight is there is no political divide. Critics of the EPA's lacklustre effort point to the Obama administration’s climate change policy, which was based on replacing many coal-fired power plants with burn cleaner natural gas. So they are accused of turning a blind eye. While Trump maybe have put a climate changed sceptic in the EPA chair, the economics, particularly trade balance will ensure the apple cart remains on its feet.

To conclude I have no doubt other than some cowboys that the Industry today operates with greater regard for the impacts from their activities and use all means necessary to prevent incidents. It also doesn't make economic sense to ignore risk and or put up with the consequences. At the same time Industry has to accept that opponents, other than the loopy ones, don't argue that every well goes bad. They are simply saying when you are drilling and fracking thousands, it is easy for too many to go to shit and they not the proponents live with those consequences.

There is one inescapable conclusion that the US in their rush to get to the top of the world energy producer table have made some serious but isolated fuckups in relatively recent times. There is no doubt this will be revisited by the lawyers at some point in the future. Unfortunately that will only be when serious effects start to materialise in those effected.. aka Erin Brockovich.

In the meantime for this publication to out the UK's AC program on the basis of Ineos being in the fracking business. Well that really is as stupid as it gets.

 

 

Share this post


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

But significantly deeper than 300 right?

Not really. See pages 54 and 55 of this 2015 Report where lowest bracket they identify in a California location is fracked well depths <1,000 feet together with groundwater depths and transitions.

The industry appear to regard <2,000' as "shallow" on the basis this represents around max fracture length.

It seems to me that risks attached to "shallow" fracking is what is catching everyone's attention and that is a relatively recent thing compared to the number drilled in the last decade or so.

https://ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4summary.pdf&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjl-rCGrYreAhWSc3AKHY02D3YQFjAHegQIAxAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OWZsd888E3XFeXcej2_Fw

Share this post


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

I am not qualified to help Randumb.

 

 

No you are not.

You post shit, I show everyone it's bullshit.

image.png.733c8127a49073934db406947470d776.png

Share this post


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

I am not qualified to help Randumb.

 

1 hour ago, random said:

No you are not.

You post shit, I show everyone it's bullshit.

@IPLore I am qualified after doing a stand in stint for 15 minutes as pedestrian crossing guard outside a facility for the interlectually disabled. So I will have a crack.

Now Randumb you first read this which will depress you.

https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy

You then read this from some serious brains and think halaluah I knew the EPA are a bunch of bullshit pricks.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04970

Then you read something like this to appreciate the efforts that people with big brains are on top of risk mitigation in fracking areas most at risk of an incident and also close to densely populated areas.

https://ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4summary.pdf&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjl-rCGrYreAhWSc3AKHY02D3YQFjAHegQIAxAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OWZsd888E3XFeXcej2_Fw

After you have done all that reading, which I guess might take you until Xmas, our hope is your silly memes stop, particularly those relating to Coal Seam Gas (which has absolutely nothing to do with fracking) and personal attacks.

God forbid Randumb you may then even elect to be a Moderator in this firey debate, not a fracking fucking moratorium or a supporter fanboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

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

Max  get off your fracking fat arse and contribute then other than that .. I'm a superior person but won't tell you anything line... otherwise what are you then except the obvious??.

No wonder people have no idea what is really going on in the world good or bad when those that know suddenly become deaf mutes.

f3fd9fc67ef30053c09a68f8907a7957--betrayal-quotes-betrayal-love.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

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

 

I went there, but found no heading "completion"?  Please advise and thanks!

Share this post


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

 

@IPLore I am qualified after doing a stand in stint for 15 minutes as pedestrian crossing guard outside a facility for the interlectually disabled. So I will have a crack.

Now Randumb you first read this which will depress you.

https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy

You then read this from some serious brains and think halaluah I knew the EPA are a bunch of bullshit pricks.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04970

Then you read something like this to appreciate the efforts that people with big brains are on top of risk mitigation in fracking areas most at risk of an incident and also close to densely populated areas.

https://ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4summary.pdf&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjl-rCGrYreAhWSc3AKHY02D3YQFjAHegQIAxAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OWZsd888E3XFeXcej2_Fw

After you have done all that reading, which I guess might take you until Xmas, our hope is your silly memes stop, particularly those relating to Coal Seam Gas (which has absolutely nothing to do with fracking) and personal attacks.

God forbid Randumb you may then even elect to be a Moderator in this firey debate, not a fracking fucking moratorium or a supporter fanboy.

IMHO....Fail!!!

1. There are no pictures or videos in your post. Randumb needs pictures to help comprehension.

2. "Mitigation" has 4 syllables . 

3. You include links to scientific publications. Seriously! You know better.

4. For example, if you could include a you tube video of a Texan politician/cowboy trying and failing to set fire to a river with a lighter .....that would be valid proof for Randumb that fracking in the Permian basin is safe. 

I truly doubt that RD understands any of your post. It fails a three part test that I have developed( can you read and understand it drunk? Can a first grader pronounce all the words? Can the twins read it without rolling their eyes and giggling?) 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

I went there, but found no heading "completion"?  Please advise and thanks!

Billy I went there and found the pro forma employment agreement Max signed up for said he couldn't say anything post employment about the fracking industry other than inuendo and saying Santa Claus was alive. I'm now starting to think Max is Bambi?

Share this post


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

Max  get off your fracking fat arse and contribute then other than that .. I'm a superior person but won't tell you anything line... otherwise what are you then except the obvious??.

No wonder people have no idea what is really going on in the world good or bad when those that know suddenly become deaf mutes.

f3fd9fc67ef30053c09a68f8907a7957--betrayal-quotes-betrayal-love.jpg

I’m too busy to wipe your, and anyone else’s, lazy asses. I sent you to the right place and even gave you a search term. I am completely not interested in being drawn into your self-aggrandizing shit. 

The problem isn’t silence, it is that y’all too lazy to go learn for yourselves and would rather just get info, which you agree with, fed to you, and insult from behind your keyboards those who disagree. 

Someone move this shit to PA. It damned sure ain’t about sailing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Someone move this shit to PA. It damned sure ain’t about sailing. 

I was right Max is Bambi...and Max the Ed outing the largest single sponsor in world sailing is a subject that goes to PA?? Fuck me..you really are a self important dope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really Max..my opinions are just simplistic and unsupported.. I ridicule...and I offer an opinion that is anything other than one of moderation and respect for opinion? No one willing to engage and interrogate my documented middle of the road view? Give yourself an uppercut mate.

You are just a lazy self important dead cunt drifting into a thread who has been caught out and hates being told so when you don't respond. Goodbye Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max......I made the same mistake that you did. You broke the cardinal rule.

Rule #1  Do not join any thread started by the ED unless it is a caption contest . There are certain bars that you just avoid, unless you are looking for a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IP you are being kind...Max is playing the dead cunt which is disappointing as he is not a stupid guy and his "hollier than thou" game doesn't help anyone and makes him look like a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I will get into the fray, even if I already know I will regret it... 

Full disclosure: I have been working for the biggest service company in the oil and gas exploration industry (hi Max!) for 27 years. Our clients are the Chevron and BP and Aramco of the world, which sub-contract most of the work to companies like the one I work for and its competitors. And, yes, that includes fracturing (aka fracking); a service I am much familiar with; I have been working most of my career in an organization that design and build equipment (and chemistry, but I am not a chemist) for fracturing services.

WARNING: I already know that by the time I am done, it will be a FUCKING LONG POST, so if you have the attention span of a shrimp, don't even bother.

I will try below to give first a few basis statement on the oil industry and the fracturing business. I will then try to give a simple didactic (some may say pedantic) explanation of what is truly fracturing, and conclude with the risks associated with fracturing and what can be done to alleviate those risks.

 

So a few facts, confirmation and/or infirmation of a few things said in previous posts:

1) Trump is wrong: yes global warming is real. yes it is man-made and yes it is mostly (but not only) linked to the use of hydrocarbon as a source of energy.

2) Today, about 3/4 of energy production in the world is carbon-based (coal, oil, gas)

3) If you are one of the screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth righteous people lashing out at the oil & gas industry (yes, I am talking about you, Ed), there are only 3 options:

 - you live like your great-grand parents, prior to WW I

 - you are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in a third world country

 - you are a hypocrite

If you do not agree with this, read again statement 2)

4) Oil & gas will eventually have to go away, but it is still too much of the energy mix to just shut it off and not bring the world as we know it to an end right away. That being said, if we do not do something, it will be the end of the world as we know it pretty darn fast anyway. So even though I work in the oil and gas industry, I fully understand (and agree!) that the sooner we get out of it, the better.

 

Now please allow me to give a (pedantic) explanation of the oil & gas and fracturing business, and the risks associated with it. Consider it a "101 primer" on the topic. OK, looking at the length of the post, it is 101, 102 and 103 combined...

Hydrocarbon are the results of a veeeerrrrryyyyy slow chemical transformation (we are talking of geological time frame, here) of "former living matter" under very high pressure and very high temperature. Hydrocarbon may migrate from the "mother rock" where it was formed to another geological formation where we find it today. How can that happen? There are 2 key characteristics that explain it: the rock porosity and permeability.

Porosity represent the amount of space in the rock that is not occupied... by rock. Oil or gas takes that "free" space in the rock. Big common mistake: we are NOT talking about caves full of oil or gas!!! But instead of a multitude of microscopic voids throughout the rock. So the higher the porosity of the rock, the more hydrocarbon it can hold.

Permeability is the capability for a fluid to "flow" through the rock because of a difference in pressure in different zones.

Caution: porosity and permeability are not necessarily correlated; you can have a rock with many microscopic holes, but they do not communicate well with each other (high porosity, but low permeability). You can have a rock with virtually no voids, but with natural cracks (low porosity, but high permeability).

So if motion of the fluid in the rock is possible (there is some permeability), the fluid will migrate from a high pressure zone to a lower pressure zone nearby; usually higher, as obviously, the closer to the surface, the less pressure in the rock.

Why is it important? Because if we find oil in a specific rock formation, it means that it has an impermeable layer of a different rock above it. If it did not, it would have continued to migrate upward until it found a barrier. When there is no impermeable barrier above, it migrates eventually all the way to the surface and it ends up as a seepage of oil, at surface, as it is found in a few places around the world.

So there is a natural impermeable rock barrier above the hydrocarbon deposit that isolates it from the upper rock formations, where resides fresh water.

So when we drill a well through the rock formation bearing oil, the pressure inside the well is so low (only hydrostatic pressure) compared to formation pressure that the fluid in the rock porosity tends to migrate toward the well, rushing to surface once inside the well. But if the permeability of the rock is low, the fluid has a hard time to migrate to the well; in other words, the well will be able to draw only from a short radius around the wellbore. To avoid that, either you drill a myriad of vertical wells close to each other so you leave no area untapped (old method), or you drill vertical wells and you "frac" them (conventional method) (I will come back on how we do fracturing), or you drill horizontal wells and you perform multiple frac jobs on the horizontal section of the well (what is call in the industry "unconventional", the method behind the current boom of production in the US).

Why horizontal wells? Some of the target area for a well may be only 50 ft thick, but 8000 ft below surface. So to get to the "pay zone", you have to drill through 8000 ft of rock which has no interest to you, then the next 50 ft is what you are after, and drilling further down will not provide any more oil production... This is a lot of "wasted" drilling for a very thin area of interest. If you want to improve the ratio pay-zone length vs. total drilled length for a well, you start vertical and a few hundred feet before you reach the pay zone, you start veering the drilling direction to go from vertical to horizontal. If you calculated and monitored the drilling correctly, you end up drilling horizontally smack in the middle of that 50 ft thick zone you were targetting; as you extend the horizontal drilling section of the well, what was only a 50 ft "poking-through" pay zone in a vertical well can now be a several hundred feet of direct contact with the pay zone, if you can continue drilling horizontally in that oil loaded rock formation. And YES, we can do that; it is called directional drilling. We can "steer" the drillbit to go more to the left, more to the right, more vertical, more horizontal... and measure at the same time to characteristics of the rock, to make sure that we stay in the zone of interest. (but this is more like the 501 or 601 course...)

But even with horizontal drilling, in a very "tight" formation (low permeability), you can draw hydrocarbon only from the direct vicinity of the well. This is where fracturing will multiply the performance of the well.

So what is a fracturing operation, really?

So first of all, NO it does NOT "consists of shocking the sediment with a shot of sand and water to loosen the sediment". In a fracturing operation. you pump fluid (followed by fluid loaded with sand called "proppant") at such a high rate and pressure in a specific section of the well that the formation cannot take the rate of fluid coming in only as seepage into the rock: you actually fracture the rock (this is why I prefer to call if fracturing, rather than "fracking"), the fluid rushes to fill that fracture and as you continue pumping very fast, you propagate the fracture further into the formation. The shape of the fracture is like 2 vertical elephant ears, on each side of the wellbore. It is only a fraction of an inch thick, but can be a few dozen feet high and reach several hundred feet horizontally away from the wellbore.

If we pumped only fluid, once we stop pumping and release the pressure at surface, the fracture that we just created would simply collapse on itself and close. To avoid that, we add sieved sand (all grains of same size) to the fluid, so when we stop pumping and release pressure at surface, the sand "prop" the fracture open, therefore the name of proppant... That fracture is now filled with compacted sand, which has a MUCH higher permeability than the rock; it is a "highway to the wellbore" for the oil or gas trapped in the rock. Imagine a droplet of oil that was 100 ft from the wellbore; without fracture, it would have to travel 100 ft through rock to reach directly the wellbore and be produced to surface; that may never happen because of too low rock permeability. Now that the fracture has been performed, that elephant ear of a fracture may be only 15 ft away from that same droplet of oil. Now it only has to travel 15 ft across rock to get to the fracture, and then zoom to the wellbore (very high permeability through the sand in the fracture) and then travel up the well to surface.

 

Why the Shale formation boom? (see post 126 to see what formations we are talking about).

Those Shale Gas and Shale Oil zones (or "Play" as it is called) were well known for a long time, but is was not economically feasible to produce them. Several factors changed that:

 - first of all a sustained high price for gas and oil (the OPEC producers got too greedy for too long) re-ignited interest in those zones

 - new production techniques, much cheaper that made those zones economically viable. The first part is the architecture of the wells I described above. Horizontal wells, with many fractures, one after the other on the horizontal section of the well.

 - the last technical revolution is the chemistry of the fracturing fluid we pumped... OR LACK THEREOF !

In conventional fracturing operations (vertical well with ONE frac job), we used to pump very complex (and expensive) chemistry: we put high concentration of proppant (sand) in the fluid. We woud add long molecule polymer additive, cross-linker additives, breaker additive, etc. They would react at different time of the operation to achieve different fracturing fluid viscosities throughout the operation. Some of that stuff was (and still is) nasty.

But for Shale formations, with some trial and error, some more research, the industry came up with a very simple (and cheap) chemistry and mode of operation: put just a bit of simple polymer, no cross-linker, no breaker and add sand. And that's pretty much it. The polymer is used as a "friction reducer", it is here to make the viscosity just right so you can pump very fast in skinny long well, without generating too much friction losses. If you pump that stuff fast enough, proppant will stay suspended and be carried out into the fracture. In the industry jargon, we call this type of chemistry "slick water".

That polymer is most of the time a derivative of guar. It is a plant originally from India, that gives a natural polymer that is used as a gelling agent in different industries, including cosmetics and food industry.

So YES, some of the chemistry we pump in conventional operations is nasty, but the development of unconventional wells with "slick water" chemistry actually simplified the chemistry and somewhat reduced the use of some of the worse chemicals.

On the other hand, the amount of fluid used is just MASSIVE. For ONE fracture, it is not uncommon to pump at about 40,000 gpm, at 12,000 psi (that's 300 times the pressure in your car tires...) for one to two hours; each horizontal well will have up to 30 zones to frac, each well site will have 6 to 10 wells side by side. A frac crew will pump 12 to 16 hours per day, 7 days a week, for up to 6 weeks on the same "pad". There are most likely through the industry several hundred of crews in operation any single day, in the US.

Now saying that we need to simply stop fracturing is PURE LUNACY. A geologist once explained to me that the shale formations that are at the core of the current production boom have a permeability similar to concrete. Nothing viable will come out of those formations without fracturing. And this is about 50% of current US production.

And most (if not all) of the rest of the US production do need fracturing as well anyway!!! American oil and gas formation have been in production long enough that the good old day where you just open the tap and oil flows freely are long gone. The easy stuff is already out of the ground...

 

So can fresh water be contaminated?

You remember that I said that there had to be a layer of impermeable rock above the oil or gas zone to trap it... but at the same time, the well has to poke through all zones and potentially put in intercommunication all the different layers of rock.

The construction of the well, as it is drilled is supposed to ensure good zonal isolation. When we drill a portion of the well, we then stop, and lower inside the well all the way to the bottom, sections of a tube of steel, each section being screwed to the one below. This is called the casing. Then we pump cement slurry in the small gap between the casing and the rock formation. If this is done correctly, the zone that has been just drilled has been sealed off again. Once we have finished the drilling and casing installation and cementing, we perforate the casing in the specific areas that we want to produce from. It is through those perforations that we pump the fracturing fluid into the rock and that eventually oil or gas will enter the well.

Fracturing operations are not going to "burst" the casing as I have read above, but if the cement job that bonded that casing to the rock behind it is not well done, there could be communication, behind the casing, between different zones. hydrocarbon could migrate behind the casing, from the production zone, all the way to the fresh water zone, and because of the pressure difference, re-enter the rock in that area.

There are rules, standards and regulations on what a good cementing operation that bonds properly the casing to the formation should be and should achieve. If those rules are followed properly, there is no reason to have communication behind the casing from the "pay zone" to any other rock section above...

 

FINALLY, some people refered to "produced water" that is loaded with nasty chemicals.

First of all, you need to know that the "oil companies" is a misnomer. They shoud be called the "water companies" or the "brine companies". A very large portion of the fluid produced by the wells is not oil or gas, but water. Part of it is what is injected into the well during the fracturing operation, that comes back to surface once you put the well in production. And that water will carry back to surface not only what was added for the fracturing operation, but also what it has picked up from the rocks down below... And yes, it can be nasty stuff that needs to be treated.

More and more often, the clients ask us to re-use some of that water as base fluid for the next fracturing operation. Even if the chemistry of the "slick water" jobs is simple, there is a point where the chemistry does not work anymore with the chemical elements brought back from the formation.

 

In conclusion:

Yes, the industry has to improve, especially in its water usage and production. Service companies like the one I am working for, are trying to develop new techniques to reduce the total amount of fluid pumped to achieve a given size of fracture.

Yes it also has to ensure proper zonal isolation so nothing migrate through the annulus to a higher zone or even to surface. The regulations on the cementing techniques must be applied/enforced and potentially improved.

 

But what is the alternative TODAY? Really?

Go back to coal? Global warming impact is worse. Truly, natural gas is the less bad of the current options.

Stop US Oil production? Is the US willing to become fully dependent of foreign countries on energy? Or are the american people ready to go back to 19th century lifestyle? I don't think so...

One of the area of improvement that has not been talked about is ENERGY CONSERVATION. Not demanding more fuel efficient transportation is insane. The building code in the US is insane. I don't think that there has been one house built in France (my home country) in the last quarter century without double pane windows, because it is mandated by the regulations... 

All of those steps are only transition solution, I know that, but until we find a better technology (or portfolio of technologies) for our energy, we have to find ways to soften the blow...

 

 

PS: if you are one of the 3 people who will read the wole thing, thank you!

PPS: I think I broke a record for the longest post EVER!

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites