News:

Play our  New Fibsboard Position of the Week --> perhaps give your comments/reasons thx..here's the link  http://www.fibsboard.com/position-of-the-week/

Main Menu

water supply and fracking

Started by stog, July 20, 2013, 09:48:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

stog



QuoteAs the level of hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells in the United States has intensified in recent years, much of the mounting public concern has centered on fears that underground water supplies could be contaminated with the toxic chemicals used in the well-stimulation technique that cracks rock formations and releases trapped oil and gas. But in some parts of the country, worries are also growing about fracking's effect on water supply, as the water-intensive process stirs competition for the resources already stretched thin by drought or other factors.

Every fracking job requires 2 million to 4 million gallons of water, according to the Groundwater Protection Council. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has estimated that the 35,000 oil and gas wells used for fracking consume between 70 billion and 140 billion gallons of water each year. That's about equal, EPA says, to the water use in 40 to 80 cities with populations of 50,000 people, or one to two cities with a population of 2.5 million each.

Some of the most intensive oil and gas development in the nation is occurring in regions where water is already at a premium. A paper published last month by Ceres, a nonprofit that works on sustainability issues, looked at 25,000 shale oil and shale gas wells in operation and monitored by an industry-tied reporting website called FracFocus.

Ceres found that 47 percent of these wells were in areas "with high or extremely high water stress" because of large withdrawals for use by industry, agriculture, and municipalities. In Colorado, for example, 92 percent of the wells were in extremely high water-stress areas, and in Texas more than half were in high or extremely high water-stress areas.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/15/2163531/fracking-is-already-straining-us-water-supplies/?mobile=nc

we have dry water tables here already -- wells are dry, and we lost water supply here today -- a result of extra water taken from our mains supply as wells dry up and more switch to mains. This will mean that extra pipes or pressure will be needed just for our small hamlet and we live in a wet area.

if fracking is allowed in the northwest UK disturbance to water tables could be catastrophic let alone the huge use of water in the process and the possible contamination. folks need to understand that quarrying (explosive quarrying and fracking can affect water supplies directly by redirecting existing water courses away from exising wells and often away completely. explosive quarrying can affect immediate surroundings, but fracking can effect supplies to an amazing distance either directly or indirectly + it uses huge amounts of water. this then is not just false economy -- the true costs are not factored in, but it is irresponsible risk to already strained water supplies. to give these companies tax breaks as well is totally irresponsible and further compounds a crazy scheme that fails to include all costs when making its case

the effects on agriculture in west lancashire could also be catastrophic. Please add your voice against this misguided greed -- our childrens' children will need water and food, they will though be able to survive without shale gas.

there will be pressures worldwide perhaps in your backyard, to expand this short term dangerous money earning scheme. Please add your voice against this

NIHILIST

QuotePlease add your voice against this misguided greed

Can you direct me to some guided greed I can more cheerfully support ?

Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

moonshadow

Whether the UK chooses to outright ban fracking as stog argues or for it to continue to develop fracking in some manner is a matter for the citizens of the UK to decide, not the US, not the European Union, and certainly not any agency of the United Nations, which is demonstrably as corrupt and self-serving as the government of a third world hellhole.

Likewise, its not for stog, the UK or the United Nations to dictate to the US, of which I am a citizen, what its energy policy should or should not be. This of course does not preclude contractual commitments sovereign nations may elect to enter into for a cooperative effort for mutual benefit, but in representative democracies like the US and UK, government leaders are ostensibly answerable to the citizens that elect them to office.

That being said, though I may have an opinion on what the UK or the citizens of stog's hamlet decide regarding fracking, its certainly none of my business to interject myself into UK governmental policy and tell them what they must or must not do.

Though I sympathize with stog's recent experience of losing water supply and nearby fracking may indeed be a contributing factor, it does not necessarily follow that fracking is the evil "short term dangerous money earning scheme" stog is attempting to convince us that it is just because when he turned on the tap, no water came out.

Other red flags that will jump out and catch the attention of the critical thinker and indicate stog's arguments are heavily biased are his use of code language like "greed" when describing fracking and the heart-wrenching appeal to reject fracking at all costs "because of our children's children."

Greed is not only applicable to oil and gas companies and big business, but to governments, global warming alarmist profiteers, civil rights race hustlers, television evangelists and children fighting over toys in a sand box. Greed is a universal condition of humanity and not just applicable to the executives of oil and gas companies who are supposedly looking to frack every penny out of the land.

When I hear the tearful appeal to do something because we must do it because of our children,  I'm reminded of the discussion I once had with a friend that was arguing for liberal pro abortion laws, which I oppose, and after going back and forth finally said, in a final emotional appeal, "We must do this for our children!," which didn't strike me as the most compelling argument in this instance because if we abort our children, then they won't be around for us to doing anything for them. 

Another red flag is the snippet stog quotes from the thinkprogress.org, which is a liberal progressive organization. Its not that progressive liberal organizations have nothing of value or their facts are incorrect, but its that one must sift through the bullshit of their ideological filter. But other than a subtle undercurrent of ideological bias, I'm pleased to say the article stog quotes from is accurate and the red flag is not that its a liberal progressive organization, its that stog leaves out the section of the article that, to my utter astonishment, informs us that indeed these "greedy" and "scheming" oil and gas companies--at least those operating in the US--are aware of the water supply problems and addressing them with innovative technologies:

QuoteNew ways to frack

Not surprisingly, the oil and gas industry, along with companies drawn by the opportunity to profit from a better way to frack, are all seeking ways to reduce and even eliminate fracking's thirst.

A new company in Texas, Alpha Reclaim Technology, sees using treated wastewater from municipal sewage-treatment plants as part of the answer. Founded in 2011, the company has signed up cities to provide about 21 million gallons of treated wastewater a day and is negotiating with oil and gas exploration and production companies to make the switch in the Eagle Ford shale play.

Some counterpoints to stog's myopic appeal for rejecting fracking and of course I am doing this for the noblest of reasons-- for the sake of my children and my children's children, and yes, for all the children of the world:

1) The population density of the UK is considerably denser than that of the US so the effects of fracking will more directly affect the local population.

2) US carbon dioxide emissions fell 2.4% between 2010 and 2011, which is 9.1% lower than it was in 2007. This is due to the US switching from coal to shale gas, which is obtained by the fracking stog urges us to abandon. 

Because the demand and price for coal in the US has drastically dropped, the UK is taking advantage of these cheap prices and buying more US coal to burn domestically, resulting in, horror of horrors, slightly higher UK carbon emissions.

Perhaps we should frack for the children so they can breath clean air!

3) The US oil and gas industry has been perfecting its fracking techniques for more than a decade. This is hardly a "short term dangerous scheme." The British have only been fracking for a short time and need some practice in order to apply the technique. Or perhaps the British will decide its not going to work as the potential dangers to the populace outweigh the benefits, and as stog hopes, reject it altogether and just buy more cheap coal from the US. 

NIHILIST

I would additionally point out that the vast preponderance of fracking is done on privately owned lands held by private citizens, many of whom are benefitting hugely financially. I haven't conducted any surveys, but my strong opinion is, if you ask the landowners why they're allowing fracking on their lands, they will tell you that the windfall they're reaping will guarantee a future for their children.


Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

socksey

I have no idea if the practice of fracking is done in this area, but I do know that our "fracking" water is going to be gone in 4 years........much too close for comfort, if our drought situation does not abate.   

On the brighter side, we have recently had about 3" of rain in an unheard of July.   :yes:

socksey



The irony of life is that, by the time you're old enough to know your way around, you're not going anywhere. - unknown

dorbel

QuoteGreed is a universal condition of humanity
...is not a justification of greedy behaviour. The whole point of being human is to resist the temptation to be greedy, selfish, violent, jealous and the all the other faults that we have.

Quote"We must do this for our children!,"
...may be a poor argument in a different context, but in terms of what we do to the planet it is a very powerful one. It is our children who will have to live in it when we are gone and what we allow big business to do for profit now will inevitably impact on them.

NIHILIST and moonshadow may well feel convinced by the scientific arguments in favour of fracking as a method of extraction, although given their reluctance to acept the opinions of scientists in other matters it's hard to see why. "Don't worry, it will all be fine" has been the word that we have had down the ages from scientists employed to reassure us about cigarettes, reassure us about petrol additives, reassure us about thalidomide, reassure us about nuclear power, write your own list!

I have yet to read an objective assessment of the risks involved in this. No doubt its supporters can point out some sources for me.

NIHILIST

QuoteThe whole point of being human is to resist the temptation to be greedy, selfish

What colossal crap !

QuoteNIHILIST and moonshadow may well feel convinced by the scientific arguments in favour of fracking as a method of extraction, although given their reluctance to acept the opinions of scientists in other matters it's hard to see why. "Don't worry, it will all be fine" has been the word that we have had down the ages from scientists employed to reassure us about cigarettes, reassure us about petrol additives, reassure us about thalidomide, reassure us about nuclear power, write your own list!

LOL, I think the second sentence here addresses very well the first. I personally am skeptical or reluctant to accept the opinions of scientists across the board, unequivocally, precisely due to the examples you give in the second sentence.

I might just as easily turn your own question on you: Why would you blindly accept the opinions of scientists paid to convince us that global warming will destroy the world when you were clever enough to discern the deceits over cigarettes, thalidomide, et al ?

This indicates that you pick and choose which pronouncements of scientists make sense to you and which don't. Why don't you allow others the same intellectual integrity you bestow upon yourself ?

I have said many times here that, to me, the notions of SETTLED SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS are arguments of convenience. As example, many of our politicians buy unequivocally into the SETTLED SCIENCE of global warming because it suits their political agendas. Yet, many of these same folks ignore the SETTLED SCIENCE of the scientific and medical communities which overwhelmingly states that life begins at conception because it doesn't suit their pro-choice agenda. The most ridiculous and extreme example of this is California's 20 year senator, Barbara Boxer, who famously stated on the floor of the Senate that life begins when the parents are driving out of the hospital parking lot, taking their newborn home.

Every time she speaks lately I cringe at the memory of working in her first political campaign in the '70s when she was elected as a Marin County Supervisor.

But that's another strange bedfellows story.

Bob 
Robert J Ebbeler

dorbel


dorbel: The whole point of being human is to resist the temptation to be greedy, selfish etc.

NIHILIST: What colossal crap !

Says it all really. The whole point of being human is to grab as much as you can without regard for the consequences for everybody else I guess.




NIHILIST

I guess as far as you're concerned, it does say it all. Since you couldn't defend the moronic and contradictory claptrap you spouted about science, you had to resort to playing the GREED and SELFISH cards.

When does one's ambition become greed ? Is that something you can define ? When does one's interest in retaining wealth that he earned for his own or family's benefit become selfishness ? Can you define that for us ?

Greed is defined as " The inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. "

When does one's desire to possess wealth become INORDINATE ? Is there a meter or scale that tips us off when a person is about to cross that line ?

The two wealthiest men in American history were reviled for their greed, and then they proceeded to give all their wealth away. Thomas Aquinas wrote "Greed is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."

Who created more jobs, created more national parks, built more universities and libraries, Thomas Aquinas or John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie ?

I am a staunch believer in capitalism and human ambition and achievement. Greed and selfishness are often elements of both, I don't believe either is inherently evil. In my own case, I went to work at a major advertising agency in a very minor role at age 19 and without a high school degree. I became a Vice President of the world's largest agency years later. At my peak, I earned about $ 125,000.

I currently live on $ 1649 per month in Social Security. My mother left me about $ 75,000 when she passed in 2010. I've spent a good part of the last 3 years giving away part of that money, the greatest part in helping two young neighbor African-American girls who had endured horrible childhoods, in purchasing a new car.

I've always lived a comfortable life, but nothing extravagant. I've always had plenty to live on and still do. Perhaps if I had truly been greedy or selfish I'd have achieved more but I guess I lacked those attributes. Also, I was having too much fun to really chase something I had no interest in.


Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

dorbel

To pursue wealth and success isn't greed. The greed lies in doing so without any thought of the consequences for others. The history of capitalism is replete with examples of companies who know of the harmful, even fatal, consequences of their business practices, yet go ahead anyway. All of them gag scientists who point out the consequences and employ minions to push the company line. The companies who assure us that pumping millions of gallons of chemicals and water deep into the ground is safe may indeed be correct, but it certainly doesn't sound like it!

We all believe what we want to believe in the end. My belief is that we have one planet to last all of the rest of humanity all of the rest of the future. Careful and responsible use of it now is a duty. Does fracking sound careful and responsible to you? If it does you deserve the Thomas Midgely award for care of the environment!


NIHILIST

QuoteDoes fracking sound careful and responsible to you?

Does driving a 3000 pound automobile at 70 miles per hour sound careful and responsible to you ? In the USA alone 40,000 people per year die in auto deaths. How many people has fracking killed ?

Compared to the BP oil spill, the Exxon Valdez and Amoco Cadiz disasters, the safety record of fracking looks pretty good. Of course, if your overarching agenda is to completely eliminate extraction and exploitation of all fossil fuels right now, all you've said before is merely rhetoric and a smokescreen.


Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

dorbel

Even 400,000 annual auotomobile deaths would have no impact on the planet for future generations.

The extraction and use of fossil fuels in a careful and responsible way is fine. Fracking doesn't sound very careful to me and since you mention it, nor does drilling 5kms below the ocean bed in deep water.

The Exxon Valdez and Amoco Cadiz disasters have nothing to do with oil extraction methods, any more than the recent deaths of Canadians burned to death when an oil train crashed in their town, on the way from the Bakken oil fields as it happens!

Let's stick to the point eh? Automobile deaths, shipping disasters, abortion, the generosity of capitalist philanthropists and your own lifestyle are all very interesting, but have nothing to do with fracking. Any news on positive objective assessment of the risks yet?

NIHILIST

Any news on the negatives ? Far as I know The existing wells are still pumping, new wells are being added. To my knowledge the EPA hasn't shut down any sites. The impact on our economy has been staggering.

It'll be interesting to see whether California totally embraces the practice. California is one of the largest oil producers in the country, and in horrible fiscal shape. No one is quite sure which way Governor Moonbeam will eventually weigh in.

Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

stog


NIHILIST

Rather amusing that energy independence is at the top of the list.

Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

stog

#15
it may mean energy independence from carbon fuels, as opposed to the 70's state energy independence, where countries did not want to be beholden to foreign oil supplies

NIHILIST

Well, it's a cartoon, so I suppose it could mean that. However, I think it means fracking the living sh** out of the planet including your back yard and dorbel's.

:lol:


Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

stog

#17
ok .. now for the pro argument...

speaking with an expert yesterday i was pleased to hear that the water use is only at the initiation of the well, and that sea water could be used, as could sewer outflow (wastewater)!

any pro info you can get your hands on and post is welcome..

for starters here is the cuadrilla site

http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/hydraulic-fracturing/

NIHILIST

The water issue is the aspect of most concern to me. I know of at least one company planning to use wastewater in the fracking process. Certainly nothing says the water must come from pristine springs.

On a tangent, there's a story circulating that Florida officials will allow fertilizer maker Potash Corp to tap one of the aquifers for up to 40 million gallons of water per day, then to just randomly dispose of the wastewater without cleaning it up first.

This is horrible public policy on at least 2 counts and needs to be shitcanned at once.

Bob
Robert J Ebbeler

moonshadow

Quote from: stog on August 02, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
any pro info you can get your hands on and post is welcome..

Though this site is focused on fracking in the US and it has a "pro fracking" bias, I've found it to be highly educational and informative:

http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydraulic-fracturing/what-is-fracking?