E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Men with Cabot Oil and Gas work on a natural gas valve at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Penn. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, stimulates gas production by injecting wells with high volumes of chemical-laced water in order to free up pockets of natural gas below.
A university study asserts that the problems caused by the gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," arise because drilling operations aren't doing it right. The process itself isn't to blame, according to the study, released today by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
The report is likely to add new fuel to a blazing controversy over fracking. Researchers reviewed the evidence contained in the reports of groundwater contamination from three prominent shale-rock formations where the process is employed: the Barnett Shale in North Texas, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and other areas of Appalachia; and the Haynesville Shale in western Louisiana and northeast Texas.
The groundwater contamination is graphically portrayed in the documentary "Gasland," which showed residents near shale-gas operations setting their drinking water on fire as it came out of the tap. Worries about such contamination have sparked political resistance to fracking, leading some states and countries to hold up new drilling operations.
At the same time, shale gas is seen as an increasingly important domestic energy source. About a quarter of U.S.-produced natural gas currently comes from shale, and that proportion is projected to rise to nearly half by 2035. Last month, President Barack Obama suggested that the natural gas industry could support 600,000 jobs in America by the end of the decade, in large part due to the rise of hydraulic fracturing. In its latest budget request, the White House proposed new studies by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that fracking is done safely.
Mike Groll / AP
People take part in a rally against hydraulic fracturing at the Legislative Office Building in Albany, N.Y., on Jan. 23. New York state legislators are considering a number of bills to limit fracking.
"It's a game-changer in terms of the energy balance," study leader Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute, told journalists today. He and other scientists discussed the report in Vancouver, Canada, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Where does fracking go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing involves drilling deep into shale beds, then injecting water, sand and chemicals under high pressure to shatter layers of rock — liberating trapped pockets of natural gas. The gas is captured for energy use, but the water and other byproducts have to be cleaned up. The procedure has been used since the 1950s, but it's become far more widely applied in recent years due to advances in horizontal-drilling technologies.
The researchers concluded that many of the reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of the wastewater, Groat said. Other causes of the contamination include underground casing failures or poor cement jobs. "These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing," Groat said in a news release.
In the reports reviewed by the researchers, "we found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself ... was a cause for concern," he told journalists at the AAAS meeting. He acknowledged, however, that shale gas development "can be bungled" due to problems with drilling and extraction techniques used closer to the surface.
Such problems are most likely behind the water-on-fire phenomena documented in "Gasland." But it's difficult to identify precisely what the problem was or what the long-term effect will be without before-and-after data, Groat said.
"We really feel hobbled in a lot of these [cases] by the lack of baseline information," he observed.
Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Ray Kemble delivers fresh water on Jan. 18 to family members whose water was contaminated due to a shale-gas drilling operation hydraulic fracturing in Dimock, Pa.
Today's release of the final report follows up on a preliminary version that was issued last fall. In addition to discussing the causes of contamination, the report evaluated the ability of states to enforce existing regulations, and analyzed the public perceptions surrounding fracking.
Among the other findings:
- Natural gas found in water wells within some shale gas areas, such as the Marcellus Shale, can be traced to natural sources. The report said the gas was probably present before the onset of shale gas operations.
- Some states have actively addressed the regulatory issues surrounding shale gas, but most regulations were written before the process became widespread. In those cases, regulations may need to updated to reflect new situations. However, "there isn't the need for new regulatory frameworks," Groat said.
- News coverage of the controversy has been "decidedly negative," and few media reports mention the scientific research related to the process.
- Surface spills of the fluids used in the fracking process were judged to pose a greater risk to groundwater sources than the fracking itself.
The Energy Institute said its report was conducted using general university funds, but received assistance from the Environmental Defense Fund in developing the scope of work and the methodology for the study. The EDF said it reviewed drafts of the report during the course of the project but did not contribute to its conclusions.
Not the final word
Scott Anderson, senior policy adviser for the Environmental Defense Fund's energy program, discussed the report in a blog posting published after the report's release. "If the problem isn't hydraulic fracturing, then what is?" the headline asks. Here's some of what Anderson said:
"As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate."
Anderson said the report deserved widespread attention, but was "by no means the final word on these topics."
Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged.
He said further studies will be conducted into the atmospheric and seismic impact of hydraulic fracturing — two much-debated environmental issues that were not addressed in detail in the newly issued report. The Energy Institute also plans to conduct a detailed case study on groundwater contamination in Texas' Barnett Shale, as well as a field investigation into the effects of shale gas drilling on the water above and below fracturing sites in the Barnett Shale.
"Certainly more work needs to be done," Groat said.
Update for 11:15 p.m. ET Feb. 16: One of my correspondents on Twitter, Pamela Oldham, notes that ConocoPhillips committed itself in 2010 to contribute $1.5 million to the University of Texas at Austin for energy research. The petroleum company said at the time that the Energy Institute would administer the grants, with the money going to UT-Austin's Cockrell School of Engineering and the McCombs School of Business. I'll check on how that squares with the institute's claim that the study was funded from general university accounts.
Oldham also notes that ConocoPhillips was recently named in a civil lawsuit alleging fracking-related water contamination in Texas' Panola County.
Update for 10:20 a.m. ET Feb. 17: Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute and the leader of the study released this week, responded to my inquiry about the ConocoPhillips grant last night with this email:
"Three or four of the large energy companies give money to UT for student support (a recruitment investment) and for research that is spread among various departments. ConocoPhillips has done this, and part of the funding they provided was to the Energy Institute to support the Barnett Shale Case Study which will be a follow-on to the study we reported on today. None of the ConocoPhillips money went into this study [the one released this week]. For the [follow-up] case study, we will use Energy Institute money plus funds from energy companies and governments in the Barnett Shale development area. This is a matter of financial necessity, but we want to spread the funding among organizations with different interests in Barnett Shale development."
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
So the process isn't wrong, it's the corporations messing it up?
If they can't/won't do it properly, why are they allowed to in the first place?
+1
As a fairly liberal environmentalist, I personally don't see oil drilling being a direct cause of pollution. The majority of the time it's the result of corporations cutting corners on safety/spill prevention measures that are MANDATORY. So yeah, technology can keep getting better each year but it won't mean a lick if corporations are chasing bigger and bigger profits and slacking off accordingly.
Oh right, there's the whole issue of them lying out the a-- whenever there's a spill to downplay the media attention as well.
It's not the oil drilling that concerns me as much as the refining / combustion of fossil fuels and what it's doing to the global climate.
I have been asking that same question regarding the federal government for a long time.
What's it doing? Nothing. Climategate I&II showed you that. And the fact that there's been no warming in 12 years should've been a clue as well.
"Climategate"? Watch Fox News much? You do realize that despite some poorly chosen language in messages, the conclusion of those studies was the same after further review, right? Oh, but Fox probably doesn't like to talk about that part.
"...fact there's been no warming in 12 years..." Hmm... I can't think of a single study NOT funded by the oil industry that comes to that conclusion. What's your source?
"It's a game-changer in terms of the energy balance," study leader Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute
======================================
The study "leader" is also the associate director of the Energy Institute and we expect this group to give us a unbiased study of something that directly relates to their financial bottom line. As Flip Wilson would say "RIGHT". Sorry, I'm not buying. If this group was a liberal group condeming fracking the cons would be screaming bloody hell.
prof, regarding "Climategate/s," what are your sources that they have legitimacy?
wow people, we live on this thing called earth. it has changed dramatically in the past, it's changing now, and it will continue to change in the future despite humans. i don't see rapid climate change whenever a volcano erupts and throws more pollutants in the air than humans have throughout our entire existence. it's a natural process that is far greater than us and our impact... now let's get back on topic... interesting study, would like to see how this and future studies are handled in the future.
Hi imwhitewolf,
Did you not read the article? This is an institute at UT Austin, and they developed the methodology of the study in collaboration with the ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, hardly a shill group for conservatives. Also, the study was not paid for by energy firms. But let's not let a few facts get in the way of our conclusions.
Typical leftist:
NASA. The AQUOS satellite has taken ACTUAL temp data for 12 years. None of it shows warming. Zero.
But I'd like to address your other comments, because they are oh-so-typical. There is PLENTY of data that contradicts global warming theory; but you ignore it. The IPCC discards any data that doesn't support the POLITICAL directives. And because your groupthink excludes any of this contradictory data, it only appears on things like FOX and "rightwing sources". Which you immediately exclude - therefore, leaving your groupthink intact. See how that works? NASA can give you pristine, ultra-accurate temp data which shows no warming in 12 years - but because YOUR media won't report it, you feel free to exclude those that do.
You're living in a bubble, my friend.
imwhitewolf -
You don't know what the Energy Institute is or does. Look into your own ignorance before you go flapping your jaw.
prof robinson -
What are you a professor of? Right-wing propaganda? Even the Koch Brothers' own study determined that the Hockey Stick is real, much to their detriment. Haven't you heard that the new talking points are:
*It's all driven by the sun (being in a solar minimum?)
*If the sun will be in a minimum, we should be thankful (and when it comes out of that minimum? What about the ocean acidification, the depletion of natural resources, and ocean temperatures rising causing sea levels to rise? Why are the ice caps STILL melting?)
*The climate always changes, and people who think people can affect it are stupid (yeah? What about the mass extinctions of animals? The depletion of the ozone layer? The increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 100 ppm since the industrial revolution? Those are just coincidences, when natural CO2 changes have normally taken thousands of years? You really think that 7 billion (with a @!$%#ing B) of us won't have any effect one way or another?)
*God said he wouldn't wipe out mankind again (ah, and here's the crux, isn't it. God said. To you? Didn't say it to me, I'm pretty sure I'd remember something like that. Didn't say it to anyone I know, either. Said it to some guy in a fairy tale, right? Did he also promise that the meek would inherit the earth? Is that why you religionists are always so meek? So eager to keep your myths out of our schools?)
Seriously, you don't have evidence to support your stupidity, and you don't have a science-based argument because you have no evidence. Now, be quiet and let the adults talk.
As for fracking, after seeing the actual methodology, I kind of have to agree that it's not the process' fault for the escape of natural gas into water supplies. It is the extraction failures that cause the phenomenon. But the process is fine. If we could get extraction perfect, we'd still have people running it.
The question is, how do we get away from the energy dependence on fossil fuels without wiping out the internet, medical care, business, industry, and everything else we've worked so hard for over the past 350 years? Technology is energy-reliant. And until we can make a distributed grid of solar panels on every house, with enough wind and centralized solar and fusion to back that up, then we have to go with what we have the technology and capability to produce.
Hey Road Warrior,
Common sense is not evenly distributed. I think you got your share, plus a few others.
We all need to forget about climate change for a bit and look at it a different way. It doesn't matter if it makes the earth warmer, colder, or whatever. Think about it like the earth is a giant garage, if you sit in your car closed in a garage long enough what happens?
The appearance of no global temperature increase since 1998 is only because 1998 was a very warm El Nino year; researchers last year adjusted for the known effects of El Nino, aerosols and solar variability and found a consistent underlying warming trend of 0.16 deg C per decade. Just wait a few more years and this should become very obvious.
Fracking is done at depths well below that of the water table. This is why there have been absolutely no proven cases of fracking causing water contamination. These shows of lighting the tap water on fire are interesting, the only problem is there is absolutely no proof that it was not like that before the fracking started. Natural gas seeping into water wells occurs naturally. It is only since fracking started that people actually tried the trick of lighting the water coming out of the tap, or more accurately the gas coming out with the water. So long as they do a good job on cementing in the lining, there is virtually no chance of fracking directly contaminating the water table. As the article states, the biggest risk would be from a surface spill of the chemical laden water used in the fracking process that allowed the spilled water to seep down into the aquifer. That said, the risk of these types of spills is extremely small, as is the over all risk of any contamination problems from fracking. And for the record, I have no connection to the energy industry.
@prof robinson.
The AQUOS Satelite is a TV set made by Sharp. Maybe you are referring to the AQUA satellite which belongs to NASA. It is an EOS satellite that studies not climate or temperature but the Water Cycle. It carries only minimal instrumentation to visually image variations in temperature between different surfaces using gross microwave and infrared assays. Primarily the satellite measures water content in different parts of the atmosphere and requires only minimal temperature inputs to be able to calculate such.
AQUA was launched in 2002, so it is extremely surprising that it has reported 12 years of data. I would agree with you that "None of it shows warming. Zero." But this is because the only published data from AQUA concerns amounts of water vapor at different levels under differing conditions. The rest of it was just a made up bunch of nonsense.
I did find this link: http://yfrog.com/gytytbkj that was the closest thing to your mal-informed rant. Apparently NASA does have an AQUOS Satellite TV that some visitor thought was very nice. This must have been what you were referring to and you just made the rest of it up.
For any interested, try googling AQUOS and AQUA and anything else you can dig out of "prof" robinson's post. You will find no supporting references except the one stupid picture that I posted.
This is the type of troll that the Koch Foundation pays to get on blogs and "disagree." But it is so transparent. At least you could have gotten one fact right. Maybe 8 years of data???
A Canadian study also found that the fracking process itself was not the source of contamination. The contamination came from the blow-back water that was stored in pools around the site. If those pools were not properly lined or the water was just left on the ground around the well traces of contamination in ground water were evident.
Some companies were also over-loading the municipal water services with waste water from fracking, which led to people tasting the oily tasting their water.
Yes there should be some good sense regulation to make sure that companies aren't short-cutting, but NO there has not been anything found wrong with the process itself if done properly and the media is driving the fears based on unfounded science.
And Republicans think LESS regulation is needed, cuz the poor "job creators" can't afford to create jobs if we regulate them to death! Well, they are de-regulating us to death.
In my opinion, it's pretty pathetic that they are so wedded to their 900% or whatever profit margins that they would punish the workers making them that money by laying off and halting work, rather than cutting into the bottom line to make it a safer worksite and a safer industry by spending a little extra money to follow important regulations, so people's drinking water isn't flammable. I mean really, is that so much to ask?
@JS in SD:
This whole scientific evidence argument has gotten so ridiculous. There's no 'proven formula' to tying one's shoe, and we shouldn't discount tying of the shoelaces because there's no accepted process of it in science. If my water started to combust, I'd notice. I'd notice very quickly. The evidence is in the fact people weren't able to burn to death from their water supply some time ago. Please, PLEASE, to all the "Scientific" folks out there...stop trying to baffle us with BS, the truth is the truth no matter which little man behind the curtain is there, science or religion.
Bollocks. The chemical stew that is used to frack is a 'secret' and remains a secret due to the Halliburton exclusion authored by Bush. No one knows what all will happen down the road and the oversights of the industry are rather weak. Tolulene, benzine and a host of other chemicals is mixed with millions of gallons of water (drinking water) and the waste water is pumped below the water table. First, water should be treated as a necessity of life, not a conveyance that is poisoned and then buried. In drought parched Texas there isn't enough water for cities and towns but, by golly, there's enough water to frack with. Priorities here, gotta make money and to hell with watching towns literally dry up and blow away.
The University of Texas in Austin is a rather wealthy university and much of said wealth comes from oil.
Robinson:
On the NASA website it reports January 2001 to December 2009 as the warmest decade on record. It reports temperature increases throughout the website.
"Aquos" is the name for a television manufactured by Sharp. I find no information on any satellite by that name, on NASA's website or elsewhere.
If you are not, as I strongly suspect, just making this stuff up, cite sources.
I call BS.
@erich,
The global warming deniers really endless cherry-pick data. It is interesting they the University of Texas (Austin) Energy Institute that is being cited by this article also shows on its site a nice PowerPoint Presentation on "Stewardship of the Earth: Global Warming and Man's Effect on it." that summarizes current data quite nicely and carefully explains the 100-year lag that was the basis for the so-called "climategate scandal." The presentation is worth a quick look since it is nicely done.
Personally, I don't think that the position that the earth's seas act as a temperature buffer and that the temperature changes we are seeing today were caused by human activity in the 1880's and 90's as anything particularly bizarre, despite their characterizations by the deniers. And I would certainly not see that gap as a "lunatic stretch of the imagination." After all, the whole "climategate" issue was researchers trying to figure out how to effectively overlay industrial activity from 100 years ago on today's measurement data. That was the whole big scandalous "twisting of data."
I can remember from the lifetime I spent in North Dakota one winter, when the electricity went off and the weather was very cold, we would fill all the bath tubs with water to slow down the house cooling off. Same principle in reverse.
the study has confirmed what I've been saying all along, fracking is safe IF it is done PROPERLY.
its the cutting of corners, costs, and rushing to meet deadlines regardless of consequences to everyone around them
Bush and his cronies did a real good job of letting the dragon off the leash. People in my state, CO, are having all kinds of problems. I've seen firsthand what crappy cleanups Halliburton does when they are done at a sight. With no accountability this kind of crap will only get worse. It's disgusting.
I can't understand a fracking thing this article is trying to say....there is no fracking way that fracking disruptions in the sub-derma layers of this planet won't frack something up....and if there is a safe fracking way to frack, then why the frack can't these blood sucking, fracking corporations do it fracking right, especially when they must know everyone is fracking looking right at them as they frack the earth up while this approach is being tested out on the fracking planet....WTF, (What The Frack), is wrong with this picture, and how much more fracked up will this be when the attention is not completely on these fracking geological geniuses.
@prof robinson
I have to agree with Arnold here. I just spent about 30 minutes looking for something about AQUOS and I can't find anything.
There was some stuff from NASA:
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I'd be very interested to see your sources though.
Watch this video put out by NASA and decide for yourself what is happening.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/27/413227/nasa-video-global-warming/?mobile=nc
Regarding the "12 year comments" And always remember that careful selection of two points in a fluctuating graph can make any trend look the opposite to what it really is. For example, in mid 2007 the Dow Jones peaked over 14,000. Right now it is at 13,000. However, those two points do not validate any claim that over time the Stock market is going down. Quite the contrary, over time the stock market is rising. You can do the same with Gold. A few months ago it went to almost $1,900. Now it is at $1,728. But anybody that chose to bank on those to points to decide that the trend for gold is to fall would be a fool - it is in a rising trend and has been for 10 years.
It seems that what we have here is a case of "It is only safe if it is done right" Then we have a case of "GOP doesn't want any regulations on Oil Business" Then we have a case of "Hey Clem, Ain't no regulations or any body to watch us so do it cheap and cut corners" Then we have a case of "Why the Heck is my tap water on fire"
If it isn't tightly regulated and monitored "BAN IT". If it is too expensive to regulate it we don't need it.
Just a note. The prof is more like a sophomore spouting what he thinks he knows.
Yeah. A university in Texas says fracking is safe and people lighting their drinking water on fire has nothing to do with the fracking going on nearby. We should believe them because they couldn't possibly have any reason to slant it in favor of the energy companies, now could they?
prof rob- you really are part of the 1%. i'm talking about the 1% of the world who still believes global warming doesn't exist. you are a fool.
Janstince (1.12)
Could you explain how the supposed culprit (freon) of ozone depletion got to the ozone layer? Then explain how a highly reactive radical avoided all contact before being able to react with the ozone?
Bruce, CFC's are highly UNreactive -- that's why they are such a problem, since they take forever to break down.
They catalyze a complex set of chemical reactions, and do so no matter where they are. The effect of this is just more significant in particular environments such as dry cold rarified air containing ozone.
As for how they migrate to the stratosphere, it's called entropy -- when you add gas to the atmosphere it tends to evenly mix over time.
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
JimCA (1.34)
They are also very heavy molecules that are nominal liquids at room temperature.
I guess these guys arnt looking for anymore grant money. Thow shall condemith all energy or suffer the wrath of the superior liberal intellect!
No bias here.
Created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005,Director Raymond Lee Orbach was nominated by President Bush to serve as the first Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Charlie Cooke is the Deputy Director of the Energy Institute. In the early 1990s and late 1970s he represented Southern California Edison Company. From 1979-1985 he was with a consulting firm that represented Texas oil and gas, banking and ranching interests in Washington and Austin.
Chip Groat rejoined The University of Texas at Austin as Director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy and Director and Graduate Advisor of the Energy and Earth Resources Graduate Program in June 2005. He worked 6 1/2 years in the Bush administration.
I worked on a rig in Wamsutter Wyoming for Nabors Drilling on land leased to BP by our wonderful BLM. For 8 years I drove 80 miles one way to work in HELL, and yes the fracking is the cause of the contamination, there is no doubt about it, everyone knew we were polluting the water but no one cared because only 1 person lived out there, except a herd of wild horses, and the only desert elk herd in North America. Well some of us cared but couldn't do @!$%# about it, if we said anything or stopped the job as they claimed we could do then they would hire one of the other 1000 men that were standing in line to get hired on. Even the land owners didn't care at the time because the money was good.
The people of Pinedale LOVED the gas rush, it brought major money to a town with one stop light, but when the boom ended the high cost of living stayed as did the ozone and water contamination. EVERYONE IN THIS STATE SAW DOLLAR SIGNS WHEN THE BOOM HIT, now we are paying the for it. North Dakota is going through now what we went through 5 years ago and soon the effects of their greed will begin to show and all they will be left with is a high cost of living and polluted air and water. (those of you who don't know how drilling can hurt air quality have never worked on a rig so you really need to either do so or shut up. Imagine 200 rigs with massive diesel engines belching thick black smoke into the air 24/7 for 10 years in what was once a pristine mountain area next to a blue ribbon fishing stream, them imagine the flare pits buring, and the semi trucks contantly hauling loads of pipe, hell yes it hurts the air, water and land.
As a person who lives in the heart of coal country and the Marcellus shale region, I know first hand that the companies will cut all corners to speed up production. Check out the report by the U.S. mine safety and health administration regarding the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia that killed 29 men.
Oops, typos. I will claim them before the spelling police comes and crucifies me.
I think it is pretty obvious there was a typo, but this you should know. That not all satellite data is released for public consumption. NASA and other agencies often make more raw data available through scientific membership organizations or upon request only.
I have read a number of times that the European satallites show no warming since 1998 also. The only other check we have is the Meteorlogical data which says not warming since 1997.
I saw a comment on a fracking video from a canadian who was in the business and he said americans get away with murder with pollution at the surface as this study says is the main problem. So US regulations need to catch up with Canadian regulations for fracking apparently
DB please go to Greenland and talk to those folks there, don't "read a number of times" from sources like the Heartland Institute or some other wingnut "think tank". When interviewed a few weeks ago people from Greenland stood on dry land, dumbfounded when the reporter asked them what they thought of the people who claim Global Climate Change is all a scam.
DB did you know the Carbon Credit idea was not Al Gore's but rather the idea was actually first put forth by one of your wingnut thinktanks? it's funny you oil company trolls use that as a talking point to say how "Big Al" was planning on making a fortune from this "global warming scam".
DB you say follow the money so I did, and guess what.......I asked BP geologists how much oil was left in the ground one day as I sat in a very large meeting with pretty much everybody who was anybody in BP and their response was, (are you sitting down?)" there's approximately 2 trillion barrels of oil left to be pumped out of the ground" and before I could say a word an English voice spoke up and said "and at $100 a barrel we intend on drilling every last drop."
Hmmm, $200 trillion dollars, do you think that would be enough money to cause a company to LIE THROUGH IT'S TEETH about the affects it's product was having on the environment?
Here is the problem. Pennsylvania restricted the fluids that could be used for fracking under the mistaken belief that it would minimize problems when the water was brought to the surface. Puzzles me considering how strict they are on waste water from oil wells. Some companies (often not local companies, but rather out of state and international) just would let it free on the surface whether deliberately or unintentionally. Well the poisons injected may have been mitigated, but what other contaminants in the shale were forgotten.
Ohio uses disposal wells - drilled just to pump water down below the shale layers. The issue with this appears to be that if the pump too great of quantities too far below the shale, they can invite increased seismic activity. There are now two disposal wells in the country that have been observed to have increased seismic activity. One in colorado, and one in Ohio.
What I found most disturbing about the whole drilling boom was that it was 90% foreign companies who were getting the leases, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and Encana (Canadian). They were down here drilling OUR Natural Gas and selling it back to us at a premium and then telling the residents in the towns whose water was polluted to screw off. I guess we are finally getting a taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of globalization, for decades we plundered other countries natural resources, exporting their wealth to the US while leaving the pollution, now our wealth is being exported to Europe and Canada as they destroy out water and air.
deprogrammer post #1.44, al gore DID make a ton of money on the global warming SCAM. the earth changes constantly and he said it's "global warming" and people pay him money. it's an act of nature that has happened for all of eternity and yet he gets a ton of money every year for it... wish i could say water is good for you and get a ton of money every year just for saying that; but then again, people seem to be smart enough to understand that, but not smart enough to understand that the climate changes because it always has and always will, not because of humans... it's really sad actually.
@trust_verify #1.35
The article you cite was dated 15 years ago; it was written and posted in 1997, and is no longer current.
Information obtained and analyzed in the intervening time has clarified the issue.
Why do we have to wait until damage is proven before we act? Shouldn't we prove it won't be damaging before we do it?
This process is just too potentially damaging, (like having nuclear reactors in quake/tsunami prone areas, duh,) and has done damage already. We must stop piggishly consuming resources and learn to live within our means--we are on a 'fixed income,' after all.
The oil companies always say their practices are safe...so do the chemical and pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't mean it's true. I happen to like my clean water and land, and I want it to stay that way.
Keep fracking the frack away from me!
I suppose you are going to tell us that Al Gore didnt invent the Internet either?
Jim Morrison said it the best, "When the music's over"
Let me get this straight, you are quoting a university in Texas study about an energy problem and expect it to hold no bias in the validity of the study. Boy, what planet are you from? There is nothing ever written in Texas that reports a negative situation in the oil industry, ever. People that think this study is accurate must be brain dead!!!
Regardless, we are exchanging another fresh water source for fossil fuels. Not only are we pumping fresh water mixed with chemicals into the earth; the process, the blow-back or the leaking are contaminating the water.
Hmmm, would you like a nice cold glass of water or would you like some natural gas with dinner? We must stop polluting our planet.
Hey, the procedure is 100% safe, the result is 100% safe, the money raked in is 100% worth it -- until any of it "happens" to affect THEIR families' health in a negative way.
When there's a firearm death, the NRA shills show up--same with oil. As VWTerry points out, there's too much connection to oil for the study to be without biases. They just wanted a study done so they could create the illusion that they give a damn and to try to get current laws watered down.
We were forced to deal with offshore drilling. Now, the Gulf is, for all practical purposes, dead and Alaska still finds itself dealing with the effects of Exxon Valdez. Cut the crap and find a cleaner way. Green technology gets a drop in the bucket of tax payer funding--when compared to oil.
Deprogrammer (1.44)
Could you please explain how the recovery of WWII aircraft required the drilling down some 270 feet of ice to get to the aircraft which landed on the surface in the 1940's?
bruce, why don't sugar molecules sink to the bottom in iced tea?
that is such a stupid statement, yeah, if there was absolutely no wind, weather, thermal convection, movement,etc., then eventually, the CFCs would slowly settle, then suffocate all of us.
I don't know what idiot came up with that stupidity, because I've heard that idiotic argument against CFCs getting into the atmosphere before, but it only proves that the person who makes the claim is absolutely clueless
Their conclusion is somewhat the same as saying, "Driving 150 miles per hour is perfectly fine. It's just the fact that people make driving mistakes that causes problems."
How absolutely typical. The God-haters think they're the most intelligent children in the room and know everything when they've stuck their fingers in their ears and closed their eyes to every spiritual possibility as though their beloved "science" had somehow discovered the mind that every thinking person knows he has, and yet cannot be put under a microscope.
Actually, Mr. Know-it-all the Bible predicted global warming some thousands of years before you were born. But it is clear to point out that this is God's doing. It likewise is clear to point out that people like you would curse God for the warming while continuing to refuse to give Him the credit for it. Also, typical, this two-faced hypocrisy and self-contradictory deceit, of the God-haters.
According to the Book, it's this very two-faced dishonesty that is responsible for their being lost. Again, typical, that their malicious fault-finding is always directed at others, never themselves, who increasingly reveal themselves to be gravely at fault in almost every conceivable way.
But enough for now. Such deaf, dumb and blind screechers will not hear this, not see anything past their own smokescreen.
Speaking of which, the following post was much appreciated:
RandomFox, that's one of the wisest comments I've ever read in this Newsvine forum.
Sometimes it seems that we're headed in the direction of having legions of government-certified shoelace inspectors loitering in the halls of every apartment building and prohibitions against tying one's own shoes at risk of imprisonment for the paranoia of the God-haters that someone somewhere sometime might tie his shoes other than as they would insist that shoes must be tied. Don't their fears never cease to increase and multiply, those who hate God and refuse to believe that each one of us will on the Last Day be judged by an impartial Judge? And from the comments routinely posted by the God-hating science-worshippers, they'd be the first to insist that it was both necessary and also manifestly self-evident that shoelace inspectors and shoe-tying prohibitions were in everyone's best interests, since, as any God-hating science-worshipper "knows" (without needing any evidence to back up their fantasy beliefs), only they could know what is best for you and me and only a government-certified science-trained "sky-imp-test" with pee-er respected training papers could possibly know how to tie shoes correctly--even it being given that there is no scientifically accepted shoe-tying process.
.(And for the record, God nowhere said that He would not wipe out mankind again. In fact, He said that He would not wipe out mankind with a FLOOD. Those who have read the whole Book, including all the fine print that many seem not to notice, know that He said that when He got good and ready to destroy the Earth and mankind with it, He would do it with FIRE. He also says of one period in history that He would not make a FULL end of this world, and of another period of history that He would then make a FULL end of this world. For "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.")
Ignorance knows no limits.
john, conversely, you have "christian dominionists" whose purpose in life is to install a government, media, education system, etc. "of the righteous" (IE those that think like them only) and ensure a "righteous rule"
people that bemoan the age of enlightenment for taking too much power from the Church. the same age of enlightenment that brought our own founding fathers
bruce dekalb, could you explain WTF that has to do with anything?
do your idiot nutcase websites and e-mails have any idea what the actual conditions surrounding this alleged plane actually were? any idea? hello?
And people actually believe these bought and paid for studies....lol...amazing what money will buy. Here's what's happening in Austin's backyard and they want to say there's no problem...go figure!
http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5311:dont-drink-the-water&catid=30:cover-story&Itemid=375
wowicantbelieveit, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
rico, did you actually read the article?
the problems are being caused by drillers rushing through the job and not doing the job properly and safely. the same rushing and ignoring best practices to get the job done that caused the BP gulf spill
the most bizarre thing is the nutcase right that wants to encourage such things by eliminating environmental regulation and eliminating the ability of the victims of such screwups to sue those responsible for said screwups.
and answer one question for me, how many of those wells were rushed?
danwill (1.57)
Freon use is only restricted in the U.S.A. because it is heavily taxed. Other countries it (freon) still can be bought over the counter just like it was here a few years ago. Freon weights about nineteen pounds per gallon. It is a nominal liquid at room temperature. That is what freon is and its use except in the U.S.A. is wide spread. I worked with this stuff in industrial settings and a 55 gallon drum weights 990 pounds net.
danwill (1.57)
Freon use is only restricted in the U.S.A. because it is heavily taxed. Other countries it (freon) still can be bought over the counter just like it was here a few years ago. Freon weights about nineteen pounds per gallon. It is a nominal liquid at room temperature. That is what freon is and its use except in the U.S.A. is wide spread. I worked with this stuff in industrial settings and a 55 gallon drum weights 990 pounds net.
danwill (1.61)
Another poster brought in this point so that's WTF. The aircraft is known as Glacier Girl and is currently restored and flying. You can blog that yourself. You might also read about the recovery and history of the airplane.
Danwill yes I have read the article. Several times. What the article says to me is that way too many people are suffering horrible health when they have drilling close to their property which tells me that several things to do with drilling is toxic...to all of us. We won't even talk about how they are tracing earth quakes back to drilling.
You want to blame it on the drillers? How about the owners who push the drillers to go faster? Who ignore workers concerns? Who want to do it the cheapest way possible so they can get maximum return? The owners aren't being sued for nothing. And your attitude of not making the owners responsible is beyond me.
Oh and Danwill I found THIS interesting:
– SolveClimate recently reported that Koch Industries will reap huge profits from the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which runs from Koch-owned tar sands mining centers in Canada to Koch-owned refineries in Texas. To build the pipeline, politicians throughout the Midwest, many of whom have received large Koch campaign donations, have used eminent domain — government seizures of private land. In Kansas, where Koch-funded officials advise Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and the Republican legislature, the Keystone XL Pipeline is likely to receive a property tax exemption of ten years, a special loophole that will cost Kansas taxpayers about $50 million.
– Koch Industries has been the recipient of about $85 million in federal government contracts mostly from the Department of Defense. Koch also benefits directly from billions in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and ethanol production.
Rico... Look who profits if the pipe-line doesn't go through!! Warren Buffet. Each party has its hand sticking out for cash, the highest bidder wins. Gotta love politics.
bruce, WHICH freon? you do know there is more than one type? it sounds like you are talking about freon - tf or -113 (same thing) which was banned, but so much was made that some still exists. it is NOT taxed, production is GLOBALLY BANNED, with the allowance that existing supplies can still be used (which are recycled again and again).
I used the stuff myself, years ago
there are dozens of variations, r-12 was the first to be banned, freon r-22 was the last to go, and is still available, there are other varieties , all with different pressure/temperature characteristics
r-12 was used as aerosol propellant, and was NOT "liquid at room temperature", once it is vapor, it mixes with the air and is carried just like any other vapor is, the stuff also lasted roughly 50 years. it can still be measured up in the high atmosphere , 50 miles up
rico, where did you get the impression that I don't blame the owners? they are usually the ones pushing hardest to cut corners. the biggest problems are the same situations that led to the Gulf BP disaster, of which BP was the one pushing the drillers hardest to cut safety corners.
probably more often than not, the drillers know how to protect the local drinking water table and it is the oil company pushing to just blow through and get to the next well
what I've been saying is that when corners are NOT cut and the job is done correctly, then problems with contamination can be avoided. there are just many cases where corners ARE being cut, and I absolutely demand that said corner cutting needs to stop right now.
Warren Buffet gains only if it's shipped by rail. I would much rather have it railed than an ugly, leaking pipeline running some 1,700 miles. And ideally I would rather have renewable than either of the above.
rico,
Reach where? China??? Which is where it will all end up. The USA can strike up a band and salute --- Canadian oil going to China.
So yes, drilling operations are responsible for "frackin" your water supply. That may be worse than an ocean oil spill! Line up the lawyers
This study brought to you by: texas. I totally trust texan science, like jesus+jesus=superjesus!
Also the article is a blatant lie.
Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
Not "being unique" to fracking does NOT mean the accusations about fracking are NOT true. Complete, belligerent unscientific lie.
@randomfox,
The article is a bit of a misrepresentation, but essentially accurate. The major inaccuracy lies in the characterization of the findings. The study actually feels that the processes used in fracking are generally quite good, but that the oil companies and drilling companies are not following best practices and are indeed causing a lot of problems by taking shortcuts. The conclusion of the study is to call for much stronger federal and state regulation of fracking with sizeable penalties so that shortcuts are less attractive. Here is a link to the Study Summary:
http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_reg_summary1202.pdf
As you can see, the study tries to present a blueprint for effectively regulating fracking with a goal of reducing the number of accidents and lessening their impact as much as possible. I particularly like the way that they interface federal and state regulation.
prof robinson, you said "NASA. The AQUOS satellite has taken ACTUAL temp data for 12 years. None of it shows warming. Zero."
The information I found indicates you are incorrect:
Go to the source data from NASA in the link above, view the graphs for both global surface temperature and arctic sea ice.
Potentially dangerous things done correctly and safely, are pretty safe. That's pretty much what they're saying.
The problem with a lot of these things that look great on paper, is that when applied to the real world application, lots of shortcuts get taken. Fracking where the gas is makes sense, but where the gas is may not be such a good choice depending on other conditions. I believe that this can be safe, but it can also have a lot of things go wrong. Fracking and many other practices can be useful to us all, but they must be carefully monitored and regulated. This is not something that should be left to the free market and industry to self regulate. Unfortunately, we have a strong movement in this country to eliminate virtually all regulation.
It seems like every place this is done, a fair risk/reward analysis needs to be independently conducted. Reward should never outweigh risk and depending on the nature and potential of the risk, the potential reward may needto disregarded entirely. The developers behind the operation need to be fully prepared to cover any risk potential and need to be held accountable. If there is a risk of contamination and contamination occurs, the burden of proof should be a slight one. These should not be "beyond the shadow of a doubt" cases. Because, when these cases hit the courts, proof is extremely difficult, the risk for the developer is purely a financial one. If the reward potential is high, even though the real risk may be significant, the decisions are based mainly on the financial risk to the developer. That is what is wrong with the current thinking about this and many other such things. The risk/reward analysis is about the risk to the developer vs. his reward. The risk to the innocent bystanders in the surrounding area are given little appropriate consideration.
The problem is not the coprorations, it is the government. We should just eliminate all of those regulations and then everyone will be in compliance.
Sounds good to me. The faster we blow ourselves up, the sooner the political ads will end.
Ha ha ha ha. A report by the Energy Institute of UT bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industries says fracking is OK. Yet another report for the imbeciles of the fux news crowd.
Science is science. If it's true, it's true. 1+1=2. It doesn't matter who funded the study. People who discount information based on source, rather than content, are simply trying to deflect attention from their own weak position.
Actually, these researchers made a point of saying that the study was funded from general university accounts, including the office of the university's president. The Energy Institute is not funded by energy-industry companies (or by environmental groups, for that matter), although the name might lead you to think that it is.
That's only true if actual science and actual scientific method is used in the study. Hard to tell one way or the other unless you actually read the study. The problem is that many studies are tilted toward the direction that the funding corporation wants it to be tilted.
No... it means exactly what you said: you have to read the study.
You didn't, so you're making assumptions. I refuse to make assumptions based on my political beliefs... you do. 'nuff said.
"Climategate I&II showed you that." Post 1.5
"I refuse to make assumptions based on my political beliefs." Post 4.4
LOL, your credibility just went to zero! Professor of what - nonsense?
"But it's difficult to identify precisely what the problem was or what the long-term effect will be without before-and-after data, Groat said." If people have been fracking since the 1950's, wouldn't there be data showing the ramifications/problems, or the gains/benefits as a whole, concerning the process without being 'political?'
Sorry, tex2c2, but YOUR credibility just went to zero. ClimateGate I&II exposed all the fraud behind this AGW nonsense. But you don't know anything about it other than what the leftwing media tells you. And what do they tell you? Oh, its nothing. Nothing to worry about. Nothing to see here. This is not the data you were looking for.
Global warming - the left's ultimate jedi mind trick. My credibility's intact because I know the science on BOTH sides of the issue and can reach a decision on my own. You just do what your told and repeat what the Left says. You should try thinking for yourself sometime.
Hey Alan,
Thanks for being a balanced voice of reason and not letting political blinders get the best of you. MSNBC and other media outlets need more balanced reporters like you. I would say my fellow bloggers need to do the same, but I think we should just stick with what is within the realm of possibility for now.
You definately earned my respect for having the courage to give UNBIASED truth which is a far cry from most of your peers both internal and external to MSNBC. Kudos buddy....keep up the good work. :)
There is no climate fraud. This has been investigated several times by different organizations including the press, and no evidence of fraud was found. There is some legitimate debate on certain aspects of climate science in the e-mails (some of which have subsequently been resolved by newer research), and perhaps a few inappropriate comments, but no scientific fraud.
Good point, Eric. However, there is no conclusive proof as to the scope that humans have on climate change...if anything approaching consequential.
If we are responsible for 0.01% of the climate change, then that is statistically inconsequential. If we are responsible for 10% of it, that's a problem that warrants immediate and drastic action.
The truth is that no one really knows to what extent we can be blamed for it. Climate change is, has been, and always will be the simple reality of life on earth...both long before we were here and long after we're gone.
"Science is science. If it's true, it's true. 1+1=2"
Science is neither true nor false. Few real scientists would agree that if research supports something that it is true. Science involves producing informative results based on research of a theory. Best case if the theory can be proven accurate enough across multiple studies/conditions it becomes Scientific Law.
As far as fracking we can say that scientific evidence does not indicate that pollution is coming from the fracking. We can also say that after multiple studies the research shows that the pollution most likely is coming from collection ponds that store waste water and not from seepage in properly done wells. We can say that with a very high percentage of probability.
However, just because we can't make everything a Scientific Law does not mean that we should abandon something. After all, even Gravity is still a theory, but we can from research and experimentation say with very high probability (99.9...%) that it is in part due to rotational forces involving the planet.
Jess, the issue of which factors contribute to global warming has been studied to death.
Human release of greenhouse gases is by far the overwhelming cause. Nothing else comes close. Everything else combined -- solar cycles, cosmic rays, volcanos, etc. -- can only account for a few percent of the rise.
Not only that, the other factors, being random or cyclic, tend to cancel out to zero over decades or centuries, whereas the effect of added CO2 steadily accumulates and lasts for tens of thousands of years.
"Prof" Robinson, all that "climategate" showed was that denialists would even resort to felonies to advance their propaganda.
Several investigations showed that all the data were available and reliable, and that the science was sound and reproducible, liars to the contrary.
Mike, your heart seems to be in the right place, but a few corrections:
First, scientific theories are the MOST supported artifacts in science, far above mere laws, which they must contain and explain. Theories of gravity must explain the facts and laws of gravity, just as a theory of electricity and magnetism must contain and explain the facts and laws of E&M, or a theory of evolution must contain and explain the facts and laws of evolution.
Second, the earth's rotation has an almost undetectable effect on gravity. It's only been in the past year or so that sophisticated satellite experiments have been able to measure the very, very, very, very small effect of frame dragging. Newton's theory of gravity still accounts for virtually everything you could normally measure.
JimCA...
Unfortunately, you are flat out incorrect. There is not scientific "proof" of your claim. For every study that says there is, there is a study by equally credible scientist that say impact is minimal. If it were absolute truth as you claim, then it would be quite easy to expose the fallacious nature of them. The FACT is that no one really knows. Is the pumping of all our carbons into the atmosphere good? Absolutely not? But there is absolutely NO definitive proof from either side. We can prove Newton's laws. That is fact...global warming...the jury is till out on the extent of the impact we have on it.
If you are so sure of your position... Please provide a link to the 100% indisputable proof you claim in which the entire scientific community agrees...this is scientific law. Until then...nothing but theories from both sides.
The problem with the data collected to support world temperature rise is: first the sites of collection have changed over time; rural areas are now urban or collection points are now in the exhaust of air conditioners, second the coatings on the collection points have changed from white-wash to various kinds of paint, third the accuracy of collection has increased .
Jess, basic physics shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will heat the planet. Doubling CO2 levels adds about 1 watt per square meter of surface heating.
The only question then is what the various feedbacks will be given that underlying heating. The most prominent is that added heat puts more H2O in the atmosphere, which then traps more heat, which puts even more H2O into the air, etc. until the rising blackbody radiation (which rises as the fourth power of temperature) stops the increase. The net effect of these is to add another 2 or 3 watts.
Then there are additional complications from clouds, etc., which add a bit of fuzziness to the final numbers. A few crackpots try to show that these minor effects can somehow counteract the huge underlying heating, but their results keep coming up far short, even when stretched beyond plausibility.
Every national academy of sciences in the world, and in fact every scientific organization in the world on record (with the exception of American Petroleum Engineers) agrees with that assessment. Even the petroleum engineers don't flatly disagree -- they just say more data is needed.
I've already discovered that any links I try to include get removed by the system here.
@JimCA
I completely agree that it does in fact contribute to global warming. That is not in dispute...by anyone that had done ANY research on the issue. I'm 100% on board with you on that.
Where we (including the scientific community) disagree is to what extent it contributes to global warming. That is very much in dispute.
As far as the links are concerned.... That's weird....I just posted on another article that allowed it. Can't help you there, buddy. :) Perhaps they only allow it on certain article blogs.
Links on Newsvine by members are not permitted for a period of time. One day you get an email that tells you can now post links.
try putting spaces in between letters, we can figure it out and post it in the address bar and look it up...
Jim.. We could be splitting hairs.. It also depends on modern vs. classical definitions of the terms.
While a theory contains laws in its broad explanation, a scientific law is typically a statement of fact that has been simplified and accepted by the scientific community as universal and absolute. With scientific advances the term law has become less used in science as most past "laws" are now found really to not be universal. (2nd law of thermodynamics seems to hold up for now). A theory is based on a set of observations that may include laws in explanation but are more general and have gained some acceptance but have yet to be universally accepted across all situations. Some modern definitions now accept the existence of gravity as a law where what produces gravity as a theory. Often a theory is mixed up with hypothesis, which is more of an observed educated guess but that's another discussion.
As far as gravity, you'll note that I stated that it has been highly proven to include rotational forces but I did not state that rotational forces were the only or even most significant.
OK guys, a law provides an equation or at least a proportionality between variables. A theory explains the law. Theory trumps law on a philosophical level, but a law trumps a theory on an engineering level. A theory can remain mostly intact even after observation requires an adaptation in the law. In modern science, laws are not always possible due to the consideration of the complications of interacting force. The science you learned in high school was simply a set of dumbed down first order approximations. The first line always said things : "assuming a perfect sphere" or "assuming a frictionless surface". Today's science relies on computer models to do what laws used to do. Variables in computer model must be tweaked to find the right correlations. Looking at a real world problem (no approximations), I find it amazing they can get the model as good as they do. Using gravity as an example, Newton's law provides a way predicts future events based on the correlations of empirical observation. It does nothing to explain why anything is happening. I am not aware of any higher order terms to Newton's law, but it does ignore the curvature and rotation of the Earth. Coriolis force is like an addendum of Newton's law, but it did not change the theory.
" Often a theory is mixed up with hypothesis, which is more of an observed educated guess but that's another discussion." Actually a hypothesis is more of an unproven theory.
I have never seen a GW denier dispute the basic science: CO2 is a global warming gas. The more CO2 we pump into the air the warmer it gets. It is due to the sun. CO2 captures IR light emitted by the sun. They deny that 3 billion people pumping out CO2 at an ever increasing rate over the past 100 years could possibly effect something as big as the atmosphere. We have just about wiped out commercial fishing and there is a lot of water in all the oceans and rivers in the world. We have polluted the oceans to such an extent that we are killing the creatures in the ocean. We polluted Lake Erie to the point that the lake actually caught on fire. We do have a very large effect on the world. You can let your dog crap in the back yard. No matter how big your yard is, eventually you have to picp up some of the dog crap.
I have never seen a scientific peer reviewed paper that denies GW. If they could pull it off, they would indeed become rich and famous. All they can say is: there is not 100% certainty that humans are responsible for all the warming.
Same could be said for this fracking report. It is not a peer reviewed paper. It is a newspaper article. Gasland is a documentary, a set a stories designed to demonstrate its point. It is not even a study. People need to stop blaming scientist for the comments of news reporters.
that little idea has already been discredited bruce. in a study funded by the Kochs, no less
I find believing this report very difficult, especially since a Big Oil Company gives money to the very university that made the report. Sorry that alone is enough to derail the study in my opinion.
Fracture Mining needs to be outlawed.
And thats my Opinion
there is a trillion cubit feet of natural gas under the oil fields in Alaska... the gas is there....all they'd need to do is build a pipeline to access this gas...that just gets pumped back into the oil fields... the wells are already there...for the most part...the infrastructure....less the pipeline...
there is a trillion cubit feet of natural gas under the oil fields in Alaska... the gas is there....all they'd need to do is build a pipeline to access this gas...that just gets pumped back into the oil fields... the wells are already there...for the most part...the infrastructure....less the pipeline...
I would rather discuss drilling for oil than continueing to purchase it from overseas! Gas prices are on the rise and noone is talking about how 5 dollars a gallon is going to cripple people. Fracking doesnt affect all citizens but oil prices certainly do!
In terms of oil, we need to stop exporting.
We export tons of it simply because it's more "profitable" to send it overseas rather than use it here at home.
They export because the oil is not where the market is, that is controlled by the pipelines, so if you have a glut and no pipeline to move it where it is needed, you sell where you can.
How long is it going to take before people start taking alternative energy sources seriously? Will it take a global crisis that stops the transportation of oil? We know there are alternatives out there - we know polluting our air/water/land is unnecessary - how long will we let oil corporations dictate how we live?
I would like to see legislation passed that requires...
If the oil is taken from American soil, it STAYS in America. We buy oil from rogue nations...yet we got tons of it here thats all being exported.
Sad :(
Fiesty1, Ruken and edward,
RE: your respective posts #'s 5, 5.1, and 5.2
Your are all on the WRONG TRACK and TRAIN concerning how the price of oil is determined. Oil is determined by the futures markets. The number one commodity market for oil is the NYMEX (New York Merchantile Exchange). Some of the other futures markets are: CME, CBOT, and COMEX It does NOT make one CENT of difference where the source of oil. Only the grade (i.e. Brent Crude, West Texas Intermediate, etc.) It may come from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Texas or Gulf of Mexico. It is a commodity and is openly traded. The below may help you. Good Luck!
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/determining-oil-prices.asp#axzz1maXjud6d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(crude_oil)
As soon as you come up with an alternative that is economically fesable we will all jump on board, until then you better get going with that chemistry kit you got for Christmas because we don't have a alternative that isn't a money loser yet .
Pedestrian
we always have considered alternate sources. The reason petroleum became #1 was the cost effectiveness and utility of it. Until either or both of those factors change naturally, not forced, petroleum will remain #1.
Forcing the issue is simply to harmful to people of few means.
Scrambolo, you need better sources my friend wikipedia is not a good source anyone can report on it and investopedia well lets just say the people who created it had an agenda! Now with that being said, the cost of oil prices happens due to supply and demand its pretty easy to determine that! What kills us in the USA is that we are over regulated, leaving us unable to currently tap into a natural resource right here at home! Rather than pay inflated prices that everyone is fighting over! People think the plant is being killed off o no nothing will be left, that is why when we cut down trees we replace them. While we need to be developing and understanding now and better ways we currently have a need to fill that cannot be ignored. You cannot have your cake and eat everyone elses as well. We all have to live on earth and we all have needs and wants and it is high time the USA stopped saying o we have to preserve what we have there will be nothing left! Truth is other countries are not doing that like we do and so we are currently only slowing down what is to come not stopping it! When half the world is doing something different, then we are not stopping it only going a little slower! In order to change things all nations would have to do those things!
despite the fact that we are producing more domestically than we have in several decades
you DO remember when oil was $10 a barrel in the 90s? (oh yeah, under democrat Clinton, btw). you know that "supply and demand" dictated that some 20,000+ oil wells in the US were not "economical" to keep running? and were plugged permanantly. you do know that the US oil industry was DE-regulated in the 70s and its been all DOWNhill ever since? the more that things get DEregulated, the WORSE off the middle class has been.
stop drinking the rush and beck kool-aid
too much fox and rush on the brain. wikipedia has an agenda? what "agenda" is that?, disseminating neutral information that doesn't fit your political rhetoric?
fiesty, even if the US was 100% self sufficient in oil production, the oil companies would simply sell to the highest bidder overseas. that is UNLESS the market was REGULATED
I hate Rush and Beck and i do not have a political agenda i am simply a person who happens to actually pay taxes! Who has a family to provide for who is sick of paying through the nose for gas prices because demands are not being met since we continue to pay for it else where. You think that regulating is the answer but it is not. Compitition makes the prices go down not up! If you think i am wrong take an economics class. PS i have voted dem for a while now :) i just happen to have an understanding of economics and history! We are not deregulated by the way we have oil we cannot even touch because of things like the EPA which is a major issue! If you do not believe me check out ANWAR! The info is available to everyone and anyone who researches it if you take the time to do it! Do not just get pissy and assume i am a republican just because i have a different opinion! That is an assumption and makes you look like an ass!
Also i did not say wikipedia had an agenda i said it was unrealiable because anyone can change the info that they list! Major difference i said the other source had an agenda due to the people who put it out!
yeah, the oil companies took economics classes too, thats why they are closing refineries down in order to create shortages and drive up prices.
free-market principles don't work so well when a small handful of giants control the entire market, eliminating any significant competition
Historicly speaking large companies like that do not last long, once they contain so much control and drive up prices it opens up the market to smaller buisnesses to come in and compete. The point i was making before that you seem to have missed is that we in the USA need to do local drilling and provide local to avoid paying for the jacked up prices overseas. By selling it local cheaper it would force prices down in order for the other companies to compete.
Fiesty1: With all due respect, you do not understand how the market for oil operates. Just because something sounds reasonable and seems to make sense doesn't necessarily mean it really works that way. This isn't the same thing as buying locally-grown vegetables; it's not even remotely similar.
The extremely simplistic free-market model you described is not even slightly applicable to this situation.
the point I was making is that if the chinese are offering $120 per barrel and the locals are offering $80 per barrel, where is the oil going to go? we have plenty of shipping terminals (and only 2% of global reserves for oil)
That is my point you just made it for me! If we are offering it at a cheaper price why the hell are we sending it else where? Rather than buying the more expensive one we need to do somthing with it here! If we stopped buying from there and dealt here they would have to compete by dropping their prices. Good lord! No point in arguing about it im not going to be rude and to continue to try is obviously a waste of time! I ran a buisness for years until i left because i wanted to raise my children and not have sitters do it. So i understand how boom and bust works and i understand the importance of competition. We were very sucessful and i learned from a wonderful intelligent family member who still going strong even in this awful economy due to a good business education.
Feisty, I think you misunderstood danwill.
If the Chinese are offering to pay $120 for a barrel of US oil when the locals will only pay $80, the producer is going to sell it to the Chinese. The producer is going to sell to whoever offers the most for it.
That point is moot because offers are not made that way. A price is set and orders are sent in, this is not a bidding war, that prices are set according to demand and availability of the current amount of oil. Thus why they shut down refineries in various areas to prevent having to much available and raising prices. So to even talk about it being a bidding war makes even less sense and makes his argument look even worse.
Fiesty, I'm going to drop this at this point.
For what it's worth, the commodities markets simply do not work the way you seem to believe they do.
I'm detracking this article now; I won't know if you reply or not.
feisty, it sounds like you flunked economics 101
when you DECREASE the supply of a product in demand, the price goes UP, not DOWN
decrease gas supply (close refineries), price goes UP, not down. it is so bad that a single refinery fire can drive gas prices up 30-40 cents a gallon
feisty, do you even have the slightest clue of what a "commodities market" is?
when a contract for delivery is made, who do you think the contract goes to in the first place? (answer, the highest bidder)
do you know how oil prices are set? (obviously not)
Seems to me that there is still the issue that fracking uses millions of gallons per well. In an area which is in either exceptional or extreme drought (where local water authorities have to implement Stage 2 and Stage 3 water restrictions for local residents or reduced supply for local ranchers and farmers), use of the local aquifer for fracking seems stupid if the water cannot be recovered or recycled to a condition for other uses.
...as opposed to shutting off the farming in the most fertile portion of California to protect a snail? Is that intelligent?
Often when a well is drilled, you don't only get oil or gas - you get a combination of hydrocarbons and water from the rock formation of interest. This water is definitely unfit for human consumption and after separation from the hydrocarbons, is often injected into disposal wells and may even go into the fracking process, depending on the state.
Right, Daryl, science is science. I only ask a cost-benefit analysis question: is losing so much water to fracking as bad or worse than destroying CA farmland because you shut off the irrigation to protect a snail.
It wasn't a science question; it was an ethical one. That's all. You may un-bunch the panties.
@prof,
How about a source on the California farmland snail scandal? I had a great deal of fun with your "facts" about NASA's use of Sharp tV sets to refute global warming. ROFL Or were you thinking of the delta smelt? LOLOLOL
Often overlooked in discussions about frac are the results of earthquakes caused by used frac water injection wells. One such recent earthquake was near the normally 0 earthquake zone, Youngstown, Ohio. As mentioned in the article above, surface formations used for drinking and livestock watering wells can be infiltrated with gas and frac when the frac well cement is cracked. A patent well can be cracked by an earthquake resulting from nearby injection wells. Pandora's fractured box is wide open.
@Richard,
That theory that fracking may cause earthquakes has pretty much been tossed. The reason is that the areas where there were earthquakes were not only doing fracking, but had all done oil extraction in the past. The new theory is that it is more likely that subsidence from the oil extraction was a contributing factor and that fracking may actually offset some of that subsidence by pumping water and sand into the voids.
The article did state that seismic effects of fracking were NOT part of the scope of this study.
Chris - I don't think Richard meant that fracing is causing quakes. I think he simply meant that you have wastewater in a "safe" place, and something unexpected happens - like a quake - and suddenly what was thought to be safe isn't very.
great source of energy , bad way to get it .
The two are somewhat related, what kind of freshman group did rhey assemble?
Me! Me! Me! I want it now. I want my own.
It's not the process. It's not those men who insist on shoving things into every hole they can find and pumping liquids into them. It's not the elected officials accepting reelection donations and pushing projects forward. It's not the corporations paying their CEO's more than god can use in a life time per year.
It's me! I want to race my ORV through the woods and scare every living thing into the next county. I want the biggest lawnmower on the block to keep my 5-acre lawn trimmed to half an inch. I want petrochemical poisons to keep weeds out of my 5-acre pristine lawn which is trimmed to half an inch. I want the loudest leaf-blower in the state to push my neighbor's leaves to the yard beyond his. I want to burn gasoline for amusement. Give me my NASCAR. Give me my sprint boats and dragsters. Give me my two-ton diesel truck to drive the half mile to the store for another six-pack. Give me. Give me. Give me. Oh! Oh! Ohhhhhhhhh!
... I feel better now. Frackin' greenies.
And you run all these toys on NG?
Yeah, it's me... who wants to drive my kids to school. Who likes to have their computer cases made out of plastic, and not wood. If you're so dead-set on hating oil, and think it's all everyone and their "selfish needs"... perhaps you can show us the way and stop using it yourself? Didn't think so.
And by the way... the comment about men "shoving things in a hole" in your post... talk about misandry! If I said something as derogatory to women and as unrelated to my point, every feminist here would be on my case. You should be ashamed.
Don't forget the power butt-wiper, with 5 speed transmission. And the 1200 HP, diesel powered beer can compactor, so you can do your part for the enviroment. ;)
Hate oil, Professor? Struck a nerve there, Professor? How are things down at the refinery, Professor?
Perhaps its the idea of using resources for trivial pursuits without a thought to other creatures and future inhabitants.
Ooh, Professor. I feel ashamed. I must have struck another nerve. Been drilling where you shouldn't? Not the robot!
You didn't strike a nerve - I just found your post offensively misandric. I take it you're female? ANd you have issues about men. Perhaps you need therapy. If I said anything nearly as offensive about women, you would be offended, too.
My point is simply that you label everyone's needs for oil as "trivial pursuits"... and I'm sure that most people do not think their pursuits trivial. You're a perfect liberal cliche - thinking everyone else can do with what you allow them to have.
America is so far behind the tech curve that I think we are headed full steam into the Third World.
People need to go to "Socialist" Europe and see all the wind and solar arrays. We could do so much more with electricity produced from the Sun and Wind, but no...we need our gas...
What a shame...
save that crap for the tourists Europe is a mess there are nice places but nothing compared to the US. most people dont have internet at home, gas prices are insane, nobody has AC and this yrs cold winter is killing tons of the tech superior Europions so peddle that BS somewhere else.
Professor, professor, professor,
"I refuse to make assumptions based on my political beliefs." Post 4.4
"You're a perfect liberal cliche - thinking everyone else can do with what you allow them to have." Post 10.5
You are just digging your little self deeper and deeper. That you are wrong headed is clear to most of us, that you are senile is beginning to take shape. Let it go, you have lost.
torngenes: Loved your post. A little unfair perhaps, but damn, it's hard not to think that way when you read some of the stuff on here.
Two ton diesel? Mine is 8300 pounds empty. Apparently you have a mini that I'm not aware of?
Here's the problem with liberals like you; you don't listen to facts. You don't want to discuss or debate. You think you can "prove" your point by simply calling the other person stupid, ASSUMING you're right, and claiming the debate over. Good luck with that. I actually KNOW the science, you don't.
Good point 10.6 I have been reading about Norway and there ability to produce more alternative energy than they can use, often selling the excess to Sweden. As I understand they have been living this way for a long time.
"Prof", if you were actually a professor in the sciences you would know that your cherry-picked "12 years" are statistically bogus.
Once the random variables of solar cycles, ENSO variations, and volcanic aerosols are subtracted out, the underlying increase in temperature from increased greenhouse gases is steady and unmistakable. If you disagree, the burden is on you to explain where researchers such as Foster and Rahmstorf went wrong. In particular, how do you explain away figures 5 and 8 in their paper "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010" just published in Environment Research Letters? (I tried to provide a link, but the system here removed it.)
Prof, It is easy to debate facts. It is hard to debate with people that invent their our "facts". Which of your comments do you think are actual facts? Have you said anything that has not been discredited? Some of your comments are simply misrepresented, but it does not add to your credibility.
Here's the problem with liberals like you; you don't listen to facts. Post 10.12
Professor, I warned you to be careful about the politically motivated claims you make on this vine. There are people out there that actually know what they are talking about and will make you look like a fool. It has now happened.
LOL
Oh! Frack this!
When we get to the point where we've got to start squeezing turnips for blood (shale for gas), it's become waay past time to start some serious(not the politically Token efforts of the past few decades) development of alternate energy sources.
The Earth is only so big. It only holds just a certain amount of oil/gas. Ain't any more being made, anywhere! We are going to run out of it.
Geologically speaking, you're wrong. Oil and natural gas are being produced. It's just not in what we would call a usable form yet. Won't be for hundreds of thousands..maybe millions..of years. The only precursor to a fossil fuel we can use is peat..it being the precursor to coal. So in that sense, you're right. We're going to run out of what we can use. But to say it's not being "made" anymore is a tad disingenuous.
Marauder, you're technically correct, but we're using it about one million times faster than it is being produced, so for all practical purposes, no more is being made relevant to the scale of our use.
Aha! Proof again that the chicken-little liberal naysayers are wrong. It won't shut them up though. They are too stupid to quit cackling their idiocy.
Do you really think the conservatwits who run business will do things properly? They've already shown they haven't in the past. What proof is there that they'll start doing it now?
IF the oil and gas drilled in this country STAYED IN THIS COUNTRY - then I would personally be interested in opening up drilling in a reasonably safe manner.
The problem is that we have become an exporting country - we export MUCH of the oil and gas that is drilled here. WHY????? Because they can make more money that way.
Why does the proposed keystone pipeline end in Texas? So it's closer to the shipping lanes that can take that oil overseas.
we refine the oil into gasoline and diesel in the us, then we sell it...at a mark up.
...and the keystone was going to go down to port arthur or lake charles to a huge refinery complex.
...thats how we make oil profitable, we refine it....some countries dont have any refineries.
A better question might be why pipe the oil all the way down to Texas just in order to refine it? Why not build a refinery nearer the oil fields and ship only the finished products, without the waste?
Because Port Arthur, Texas is located in a tax-free foreign trade zone. The Canadians want to ship their sh!tty oil onto the world market using our infrastructure and not pay anybody any taxes on it.
There, now the cat's out of the bag.
Fuel is a commodity on a world market. It will flow to the highest bidder.
cal, it costs more to transport gasoline across the states to a port than it does to a refinery on the port. plus environmental protection agency wont build new refineries, not with out heavy fines, to mid-west states. its easier, and safer to transport crude with a pipeline. if there is an earthquake you can shut off with little chance of fire.
actually it is closer to the refineries that can refine it.
with loading facilities in the gulf.
Among the other findings: Comments thereof
(Little more than obvious, hydro (gas) carbons exist there or you would not be drilling there! So gas would have to of leaked over the years.
The question to ask is how simple would it is to use a barcode made of predefined ratios of isotope of elements that do not exist in nature. This would label the fluids being pumped in and making them easily detectable when contamination as suspected. Four isotopes mix in 1 to 10 rations would allow 10,000 different combinations; widely separated areas could use the same ratio. End concentrations of parts per billion would be detectable for very long time frames.
(It is a little known fact that this what national based governments are uniquely empower by the public to determine, to document and to regulate, there have been number approaching one million wells drilled, each of those has a history, that history is buried deeper than hell in financial, records geological reports, contract, bankruptcies, deed modifications, and these assets have been sold and resold as assets over the years. New regulations should reflect how visible that historic information becomes, the wells don't move, corporations have ready established ownership, fracking could trespass in lands not having sold rights. Frame work: Document the activity, file progress reports, record measurements, calculate and analyze aspects, project productivity gains, make record accessible, document failures and expectations. If there gas there then earn a profit, if fails learn from it and make truthful information available. )
(Note scientific publications are owned by the publisher and access is not provided free to the public. New media have no qualifications or time for that matter to plow through tens of thousands pages and deciphers the results. The corporations own much of that information, have agreements with instructions and fund many reports. The lack of transparency, and the absence of trust of corporations but the public, and the general suppression of controversial information do not make the news publications, so you have none. I can read what I can't see.)
(Drilling mud gets all over hell, mixed in temporary ponds and dumps back when finished, I remember walking over semi-dried drilling mud, each step added 3/8 inch of mud to my footsteps, with 4 inches of mud on the soles it took an hour to wash it off.)
Ok now where's the text of the study?
EIA http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press362.cfm
Immediate Reductions in EIA's Energy Data and Analysis Programs Necessitated by FY 2011 Funding Cut
WASHINGTON, DC - The final fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget provides $95.4 million for the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), a reduction of $15.2 million, or 14 percent, from the FY 2010 level.
"The lower FY 2011 funding level will require significant cuts in EIA's data, analysis, and forecasting activities," said EIA Administrator Richard Newell. "EIA had already taken a number of decisive steps in recent years to streamline operations and enhance overall efficiency, and we will continue to do so in order to minimize the impact of these cuts at a time when both policymaker and public interest in energy issues is high," he said.
EIA must act quickly to realize the necessary spending reductions during the present fiscal year, which is already more than half over. The changes in products and services identified below reflect initial steps to reduce the cost of EIA's program. Additional actions are being evaluated and may result in further adjustments to EIA's data and analysis activities in the near future.
Initial adjustments to EIA's data, analysis, and forecasting programs include the following:
Help To Whom
I've linked to a page that offers the text of the study as well as other materials, but just to be safe, here's the explicit link to the full text of the 414-page study:
http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf
Until the University of Texas gives back the money Big Oil gave it, I will continue finding it hard to believe any study that this University does concerning Fracture fuel Mining, crude oil studies and alternative fuel.
Fracture mining needs to be outlawed.
And thats my Opinion.
People were lighting water since at least the 1930s. Completely natural.
this is good news, it means that new regulations will cool all the anger at tracking and now we can look at what good it does for us, such as lower gas prices, create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and create extra tax revenue
sounds like a bs study to me. I am highly suspect of any study down by a Texas university, being a Texan, and knowing who provides the funding for some of this research.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go cash my check from the drilling industry. UT needs the cash.
I wouldn't trust a thing that came out of any Texas university anyway, let alone an energy institute dealing with energy matters. Conflict of interest with an agenda much?
Even if these "cement jobs" are done absolutely perfect, how many years will that cement hold up for? !0 or 20 years maybe? Then who is going to take the responsibility to go back down into the earth and re-cement these fissures in the bedrock? Just like all of the thousands of "cement jobs" in the sea floor of the gulf of Mexico... They will only last so long, then oil and ocean floor pressure will breach these holes. Each hole is a potential spill like what we just witnessed with BP. Then who is going to take the responsibility of repairing them many years later after all of the profits have all been raked in? Clean energy should take front stage NOW and not all of these draconian methods of fuel extraction that in the future will surely lead to disaster on a global scale.
They only have to last until the drilling is done. Remember the hydrocarbons are there already; they always were.
Its all about handling extreme pressures. A correct multi staged cement job done to specs on all accounts meets or exceeds most pressure tests. The most crucial parts of the puzzle to contamination of upper zones starts with the surface casing and ends with the down hole production casing. Every time the crews set a cement job they should meet or exceed the industry standards for quality control. Another factor is Chinese steel. The quality compared to good old fashion Pittsburgh steel is not the same. American steel is and was hard to beat. There is plenty more but would be somewhat speculating on the pro's and con's for I have been away from the industry directly for too long. In relationship to ground water and inquiring contamination to the aquifers my opinion is no fracking within 1000ft of an existing water well. Yadda, Yadda!
All this raises the question: if fracking is ok but companies are not doing it right, is the GOP lying to us when it says "industry will police itself"? Of course, anyone who bought that in the first place after centuries of mistreatment of the land and air should have their brain examined in the first place.
Can you imagine the horrors of livnig in a lagre city to day with 2 million horses crapping on the earth wherever they go!Haven't seen an automobile that will run without carbon based energy more than a few miles!Might find it hard to get to your favorite rock climbing area without a horse drawn or carbon based vehicles!
Why couldn't you just ride a bike? Too much work for the legs, has to be a horse? And if you believe that the technology is not out there, you're being lied to. It's out there.
legalize industrial hemp, we'll get cleaner biofuel to use as well as electricity (hemp can replace all coal use in power plants) for electric vehicles.....!
Sorry, its been tried; not only do bio-fuels take much more energy to produce and refine, but the amount of land required to make even a modest amount makes it unrealistic. The last failure is realizing that bio-fuess is also a carbon based product that burns at lower combustion creating more fuel for similar power; as a result it creates higher CO2 levels than regular gasoline...
The reason some of the gas stations add it is mostly political, they believed it would be more energy efficient and cleaner if it were added to regular gas. Most companies shied away after their studies, but the government in their wisdom offered guaranteed payments (no risk) for any company to start producing (thinking they would be green before the tests were complete); I know now in Canada ALL the bio-fuel refineries are owned by a Chinese company (in China) with a contract to produce with a GUARANTEED profit from our government.
no, what you know of biofuels is flawed in one small way (no offense intended). this is based on using corn as a biofuel. hemp needs no herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides, and minimum water use. it also burns cleaner. and one acre of hemp provides 4 times the amount of biomass than corn. maybe it could be made to be more effiecient, but other than that, it's a logical choice, especially when you realize you can grow hemp in all climates from florida to alaska...
I can remember my grandpa telling me about how they could light the water from the well he had as a kid on fire. Given that if he was still alive he would now be over 100 I don't think it was fracing that contaminated his well. People tend to forget that the oil we are pulling out of these wells is itself a hazardous substance. The fracing isn't the problem our absolute lack of trying to find alternative resources is.
If the oil has been in the ground all along isn't it organic? Doesn't that make it safe and all natural? Not genetically modified, produced in a lab etc...lol just having a little sarcastic fun...
These are all lies by an industry BENT on destroying natural aquifers all over the country so they can OWN water rights and begin selling us what little unpoisoned water is left. Note how all the science is just saying "possibly" "probably" "unknown" "Not certain" Plus putting in the old BS of "it was probably like that to begin with." Or worse "The job is being bungled above ground." Tell that to the human victims breathing in methane and other toxic gases daily, tell it to the animals dying in the fields or being poisoned so badly they aren't fit for consumption by humans! How can science say "It's not fraking's fault" when they don't have hardly any information on it! After all these years of Fraking suddenly it seems amateurs are in charge. Would the govt. put amateurs in charge of Nuclear facilities as well? Oil drilling? If "jury-rigging" wells is the problem then all these people need to be IN JAIL. They are ruining entire states water supplies, polluting the air and as Gasland said, Bush let all these companies off the hook! They can't be prosecuted under anti-pollutiion laws! The really stupid side of all this is methane can be manufactured easily and quickly with massive organic compost piles, which can also generate huge quantities of natural fertilizer! But no. Drilling, punching holes in the earth, that's what we have to do to make 60,000 lousy temporary jobs! Come on, pull the other one!
So, based on this argument, we can conclude that driving--in and of itself--doesn't cause accidents; it's the people doing the driving. The people doing this study (a/k/a drivel) need to go back and get a refresher course on Theory vs. Practice.
"Other causes of the contamination include underground casing failures or poor cement jobs."
So here is the problem. Even if the fracturing process itself is not the problem (a contestable claim), casing failures and poor cement jobs are commonplace. There is a 100% probability that casing failures will occur at some point, not necessarily is any particular well, but in some well. Once the casing fails, the problems cannot be contained. Besides, this study does not address the seismic instability problem which, as we have seen in Ohio, could be extremely destructive.
It may not be fracking's fault, but oh how ironic; it certainly will end up being fracking's faultlines....
"Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged... He said further studies will be conducted into the atmospheric and seismic impact of hydraulic fracturing — two much-debated environmental issues that were not addressed in detail in the newly issued report."
Punching holes in the earth? Good point David St Albans....Can we say logically that enough fracturing as in faultline fractures leads to seismic activity as pressure shifts under the weight of the earth? That such pressures can even create eventual sink holes where there is water erosion? That this has happened before? Yes. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. It takes a geologist.
Why wait for this Pandora's box to be opened to suffer the consequences of the oncoming exploitation? But then the ancients who made the myth of Pandora knew human nature all too well. I just read a local editorial about how today in Ohio, we have that gold rush mentality as people are taking their claims for mineral rights to these drillers hoping to cash in after "all these years of having so little". But wait, does anyone care or ask what will be left of these states in the future? Where will the people live? Where is all that money going to go to? Whose pocket will profit and who will pay the price?
Surely not those who are cashing in with a one time sale but to those who will repeatedly suck every drop of this goop up out from below your little granite plate leaving toxic tea and lots of Swiss cheese for the folks to live on. What a nightmare. With this and nuclear waste pollution, there is no going back. My state is on the cross hairs, up for sacrifice. It is time for clean green alternatives that are affordable like solar panels and vertical wind turbines to be made and sold all over these states American to American, that is where your jobs really are, right in the village, it is time for real local enterprise by many, not monopoly and not the toxic waste-dump end times for homo-dinosaur-us.
JS in SD: For the record, you have no concept of reality. The contamination of the ground water doesn't START at well below the water table where they do the fracking. It starts at the surface and continues all the way down the drill string until they reach their target depth. All the way down the drill bit is being lubricated with chemicals that they will not reveal to the public. These chemicals are dumped by the thousands of gallons per well and they contaminate the groundwater EVERY time they touch it. Whether it be an underground river or an aquifer. These thousands of gallons of hundreds of chemicals that are NOT naturally occurring contaminate everything they touch. As soon as the unspoiled naturally occurring groundwater is infiltrated, it's over. These chemicals do not disperse and become all warm and fuzzy. The big oil companies have too much at stake to allow anything like truth to get in the way of their end product: Money. They do not care about you or your children. They care about theirs. They don't live where they're doing the damage. They also are some of the major contributors to the very places charged with doing oversight of the companies they are associated with. There was a great piece on the radio about a professor at Penn State who was part of the department that got samples from the government to check for its safety. When he began doing his own testing of the effluent drain into the river from a local water treatment plant and found the particulate levels thousands of times higher than legally acceptable, he proceeded to make his discoveries public and was told by the administrators of the University that he had to stop doing that. He subsequently quit and is still doing his personal research. It was found that the University had received funding from big oil. These guys know how to manipulate the system to their ends. There are billions of dollars at stake. They have no qualms donating millions to keep folks quiet. The bottom line is that THEIR bottom line is more important than yours. People will ignore the reality of what is really going on to their peril. The long view in the West is counted in short years, not decades. Our interest in our environment and its ability to sustain us indefinitely had better become more than it is. Our drinking water is maybe the most important thing in our lives, among many that we need to live. If we proceed the way we are going, we put our lives in jeopardy. It is my wish that we stop being spoon-fed what we should believe from these corporations that do not have our best interests at heart. If wishes were horses...... you know the rest. Open your eyes folks.
For the record, I have worked in the oil industry... when I was much younger and less informed.