# Fracked gas in populated areas increases disease vastly



## webbie (Mar 24, 2012)

This is somewhat troubling:
http://www.erierising.com/human-hea...ment-of-unconventional-natural-gas-resources/

Basically, it says that those living within a 1/2 mile (that means a one mile circle with the gas well in the center) are subject to vastly more cancers and other diseases. Because of the way cancer and other diseases work, those further away also will have more problems, but they are harder to measure - and also cumulative.

Clean does not always mean clean. I am of the opinion that someday - and maybe even now - they would be able to extract this gas in a cleaner fashion, but why do so when they don't have to?


----------



## begreen (Mar 24, 2012)

I think the industry is banking on the fact that a lot of health issues will take years if not decades to appear. By then it's someone else's problem.


----------



## webbie (Mar 24, 2012)

That's pretty typical with most of these deals - unfortunately! 
It is amazing that "freedom" and "property rights" include the ability to give people vastly more disease and not pay for it.....that is, if it can be paid for at all. 

As I said above, I suspect there are ways to do it all cleaner - but, obviously, that means less quick profit.


----------



## JustWood (Mar 24, 2012)

Lots of hype.
I should be infested with cancer if this is true. I counted the wells within a mile of my home awhile back. Don't remember the exact number but I think it was just under 20.
The majority of the wells here were fraced 20-40 years ago.
Look at the maps and guess what county I live in.

http://andyarthur.org/maps/gas.html


----------



## webbie (Mar 24, 2012)

Lee, stats like that cannot be traced to cancer clusters and stuff like that. People are too mobile (they move) and too many other factors come into play - but the study is solid. The sampling picked up 5X as many VOC's and other such things in that radius.

I'm sure it could just as bad 1/4 mile downwind from most auto body shops also....but they aren't throwing in tens of thousands more of those and they have not excused them from the clean air standards (as they have with fracking chemicals).

Hey, if there is nothing wrong and nothing to hide - then we should all agree that high standards should pertain - right?


----------



## JustWood (Mar 24, 2012)

http://fracfocus.org/


----------



## ScotO (Mar 24, 2012)

The guy who is going to mill my walnut logs on Monday afternoon (was supposed to be today but the rain screwed that up) is an local engineer who works for a machine company that sells a lot of drilling equipment, not only to the mining industry but other industries as well.  We were talking about this very subject the other evening when he came down to check out my walnut logs.  Long story short, he said he too was very skeptical of the adverse side effects of mining, after visiting many of those operations already he said that most of them are maintaining a very high mark of safety as far as health concerns.  Now I am not saying I agree with the whole frack mining thing, I personally think it is bad for the environment (both above ground and below ground).  It's hard to say, there are so many different things in the atmosphere (look at Japan's tsunami and the nuclear crap in the atmosphere from that tragedy).


----------



## begreen (Mar 24, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> Lots of hype.
> I should be infested with cancer if this is true. I counted the wells within a mile of my home awhile back. Don't remember the exact number but I think it was just under 20.
> The majority of the wells here were fraced 20-40 years ago.
> Look at the maps and guess what county I live in.
> ...


 
I thought this was recent technology from the late 90's. Were they fracking gas wells in your area 20-40 yrs ago?


----------



## JustWood (Mar 24, 2012)

begreen said:


> I thought this was recent technology from the late 90's. Were they fracking gas wells in your area 20-40 yrs ago?


YEP! They've actually been fracing longer than 40 years.
The horizontal part is new but the chemicals are still the same.
Hell, we have oil at 700-1800 feet and gas at 1800-5000. MUCH closer to the surface than the horizontal wells being drilled in PA. Our gas/oil is in Medina (a very porous non gas producing sandstone) not shale and many times easier to frac. If there were going to be problems with fracing , gas migration, and polution it wood have been here 20-40 years ago when the drilling boom was on like donkey kong and there was little regs. Like I've said before settling ponds were pumped free of water and the solids were buried on site at all these wells 20-40 years ago. Today it is landfilled.


----------



## begreen (Mar 24, 2012)

It often takes about 30-40 years of exposure for cancers to develop. Your area would be an interesting one to study.


----------



## semipro (Mar 24, 2012)

Natural gas good; fracturing bad. 
Seriously, as long as we are modifying subsurface conditions with high pressure fracturing we risk contamination of our ground water supplies. 
Once they're contaminated that's it. 
We'll need to weigh the benefits of getting more natural gas to burn with the potential very long term destruction of fresh water supplies.
Just one more argument for concentrating our efforts on renewables instead of fossil fuels.


----------



## btuser (Mar 26, 2012)

begreen said:


> It often takes about 30-40 years of exposure for cancers to develop. Your area would be an interesting one to study.


 
That's a long time.  I'm ambigious about the fracking (seeing how far away I am) but 30-40 years seems like ultra-low levels of exposure, like less than gas station levels.  My only complaint is their exclusion from the clean air/water laws.  Nothing to worry about should mean nothing to hide.

What exactly is "vastly" more cancers?  I didn't read very closely but from what I gather its:

"Cumulative cancer risks were 10 in a million and 6 in a million for residents living ≤ ½ mile and > ½ mile from wells, respectively, with benzene as the major contributor to the risk."

So an extra 16 people in a million are going to get cancer?  I'll roll the dice for a check every month, cuz I sure as chit ain't gonna stop drinking or eating red meat.  Back that truck up and drill in my living room!


----------



## begreen (Mar 26, 2012)

It's not just gas wells, airports are not the best places to live close to either. They studied SeaTac and found a significant increase in cancers showing up in folks living close by.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17419/Now-living-airports-cancer.html
http://www.areco.org/ExpAir.pdf


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 26, 2012)

They have been punching gas wells in yards all over Fort Worth. And the air quality in the city has gone to hell.


----------



## Normande (Mar 26, 2012)

I was born In Westen PA and some of those wells are 50 years plus most a lot newer, If you think the stat are bad on Marcellus wells just wait till you see Utica shale wells, they have abandoned Marcellus for Utica in the region I was born Alot higher yeilding and suprisingly Dirtier, thay are aftre the "other" stuff right now gas is too cheap,but this is also why fuel is so high on the east coast when compared to other more mid west regions, we are Nat gas deficient and oil deficient, Nat gas is also the main ingridient in "enviromentally" friendly snow melts ie. Urea. Cheap fertillizer means cheap  food, thats the goverments main reason for pushing the regs on nat. gas hydro fracking,
PS My dad making a living supplying these well right now as other frieght is non existant


----------



## JustWood (Mar 27, 2012)

Normande said:


> I was born In Westen PA and some of those wells are 50 years plus most a lot newer, If you think the stat are bad on Marcellus wells just wait till you see Utica shale wells, they have abandoned Marcellus for Utica in the region I was born Alot higher yeilding and suprisingly Dirtier, thay are aftre the "other" stuff right now gas is too cheap,but this is also why fuel is so high on the east coast when compared to other more mid west regions, we are Nat gas deficient and oil deficient, Nat gas is also the main ingridient in "enviromentally" friendly snow melts ie. Urea. Cheap fertillizer means cheap food, thats the goverments main reason for pushing the regs on nat. gas hydro fracking,
> PS My dad making a living supplying these well right now as other frieght is non existant


 
That's alot of hawghack 
Uttica shale gas yields higher BTUs and is cleaner which fetches a higher $ at NYMEX. Uttica shale gas also has a higher concentration of condensates/oil.
A few of the Uttica wells drilled are producing UN-FRACED and the gas is end user pipeline ready in some cases.
Oil and gas are priced equally everywhere. It's taxes,transportation, and refinement costs that are more or less in different states.
In case you haven't checked lately urea and fertilizer are 400+++++ % higher than they were a decade ago and nat gas storage capacity is at an all time high.
The government isn't pushing any regs on nat gas. Technology advancements have allowed the rules to be changed. There is no lack of oversight like that which has been claimed.


----------



## MishMouse (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually any area that has chemicals introduced into the ground water or air will have a higher disease rate. The area I live in doesn't have fracking it instead has potato farms and it is very hard to find anyone that is not on a inhaler or has/had some type of cancer. Think back, 20 years ago, cancer was almost unheard of, you may have a friend of a friend who may have a relative that has it, now it is rare to find anyone who doesn't have a family member who has/had cancer. Its in our air, its in our water and its in our food.  If someone has the money the EPA and other state/federal/county government organizations look the other way.


----------



## webbie (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd question anyone who is skeptical of science!

VOC's and other solvents and hydrocarbons cause many ailments. This study pointed to quite a large increase.

The question is not "gas good, pollution bad", but rather a series of questions....

1. Is there a better or cleaner way to do it?
2. What responsibility should land owners and gas drillers have to the general public?

and so on....

It's no excuse to say "heck, this other thing is dirty too" since these effects are cumulative. That is, a bit of pollution from this (cars, wood smoke) PLUS some from fracking adds up to bad things.

It's a serious question - same as a lot others. Do the rights of corporations and money....take away some rights from others?

To those who think it is all OK - so, if I might ask, what increase in dangerous compounds in the air do you find acceptable...before those putting them there have to try their best to fix them??

I'm no expert, but there is a BIG reason that Cheney made sure the clean air and clean water regs were thrown aside for fracking gas......and this is part of that reason.

Gas is dirt cheap and there is a glut. I'd rather gas be a lot higher and folks like LEE and the gas drillers make a LOT more - enough to use the best possible technologies to keep others safe and disease free.

As with most other things, you can do it cheap...or you can do it right.


----------



## JustWood (Mar 27, 2012)

webbie said:


> I'd question anyone who is skeptical of science!
> 
> VOC's and other solvents and hydrocarbons cause many ailments. This study pointed to quite a large increase.
> 
> ...


I agree Craig, things can always be improved and with industry expansion , innovation and efficiencys arrise.
 The idea that the whole process of fracing is a new thing and is BAD  tweeks me.Literally 99% of the people I talk to that are against fracing have absolutely no idea WHY and know very little about the process.
  The process/technology has come a long way in 30 years. I've witnessed it first hand.
The study you linked to was done during drilling. I would like to see a before and after study just out of curiosity.
I've seen parts of the so called "exemptions" and those were just minor changes in setbacks and modifications to fluid handling procedures which have been improved industry wide anyway. Do you have a link to the "exemptions"?


----------



## Normande (Mar 27, 2012)

Lee, I won't argue your points, by " dirt" I was talking about the condensates , could not remember the word, a far as btu's goes that just means their is a lot more " junk" coming back up doesn't, If Uttica is yielding like the stories I've heard in Unfracked wells that's good isn't it? but the part about natural gas location and the cost of gasoline was just in the news here. A far as rest goes that at least has been government policy in the past, and urea is over priced because the USA makes very little anymore that's a fact, just a few years ago  most was coming from Russia, of all places. Politics aside, most things humans do to get large amounts of energy located and moved from one location to another turns out bad. High tension power lines are my example.
As far as fertilizer being higher, I live that nightmare every day.


----------



## webbie (Mar 27, 2012)

The exemptions were a very big deal.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=safety-first-fracking-second

"In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act."

It's bad enough that some want to get 100% rid of the EPA - this shows how just one on-purpose loophole can endanger a lot of people!


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Hi webbie.
A wee bit of info.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293086/truth-about-fracking-kevin-d-williamson?pg=1


----------



## JustWood (Mar 27, 2012)

According to this the exemptions originated previous to Cheneys rein and states can over rule the exemptions as is the case in NY state.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/oil-gas.pdf


----------



## gtjp (Mar 28, 2012)

Well:
We have noticed in open loop geothermal well pump-dumps,(~ 4000 to 6000 gallons per day in our wet high yield well water areas...
that had great water for 5+ years in geauga county NE OHIO, now have strange sediment debris plugging ( not iron nor manganese) screens of just 60-mesh...
like never before within 3/4mi of fracking sites within 90-150 days of those working for gas , etc...


----------



## JustWood (Mar 28, 2012)

gtjp said:


> Well:
> We have noticed in open loop geothermal well pump-dumps,(~ 4000 to 6000 gallons per day in our wet high yield well water areas...
> that had great water for 5+ years in geauga county NE OHIO, now have strange sediment debris plugging ( not iron nor manganese) screens of just 60-mesh...
> like never before within 3/4mi of fracking sites within 90-150 days of those working for gas , etc...


Drive a nail through a Milky Way bar,,,,, you're gonna get chocolate in the nougat. That's as common as spagetti and meatballs and they tell you that may happen that close to a site.
It's just sediment as you said that has been stirred up from the vibration.


----------



## semipro (Mar 28, 2012)

I fail to understand why anyone can't understand that:

The subsurface is complex with aquifers, oil, gas, natural fractures, preferential pathways, porous and non-porous strata, etc.
You can poke a shallow hole into it and tap into vast, and in some cases, ancient, fresh water supplies
You can poke a deeper hole in it and tap into underground formations containing fossil oil and/or gas
The deeper hole you poked through the water bearing layers and confining strata, combined with injection of "stuff" under high pressure..
Forces oil, gas, and injected "stuff" to migrate outward and upward through existing or newly created fractures or punched holes to areas where it wasn't before
Potentially contaminating water supplies with "stuff" or the petroleum, or gas its pushing around.
Or grossly oversimplified:

Put two straws in a orange.  Pump crap into one and start sucking on the other.  Pretty soon you'll taste crap.


----------



## JustWood (Mar 28, 2012)

semipro said:


> I fail to understand why anyone can't understand that:
> 
> The subsurface is complex with aquifers, oil, gas, natural fractures, preferential pathways, porous and non-porous strata, etc.
> You can poke a shallow hole into it and tap into vast, and in some cases, ancient, fresh water supplies
> ...


 
If your orange straw theory worked like you say it does then there would not be one single ounce of fresh drinkable water on this planet. Aquifers are sealed off by MANY layers of rock,shale,and SALT. For instance here there are 3 layers of salt sandwiched in between other layers of rock ,shale,strata , etc. The bottom layer of salt above our gas medina is 500-550 feet thick.  Don't you think if there was going to be aquifer contamination issues that a shale gas formation under 30,000 PSI natural  pressure would drive the salt brine into fresh water aquifers. If anything drilling a gas well relieves pressure off of an aquifer and quite possibly PREVENTS natural contamination.


----------



## semipro (Mar 28, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> If your orange straw theory worked like you say it does then there would not be one single ounce of fresh drinkable water on this planet.


 
Its all a matter of time and subsurface formation properties. Yeah it would happen fast in an orange, much more slowly in our earth, faster in some places, slower in others. 
Our water supplies everywhere show increased levels of contamination from myriad sources including drilling.
Even standard drilling practices have contaminated aquifers let alone those using fracturing production.This has been observed countless times through the new appearance of drilling mud constituents (e.g., metals, polymers) in previously uncontaminated water supplies subsequent to drilling.   
Even If we stop doing everything we do that pollutes this contamination would still continue to spread.
You can only poke so many holes in those same strata you refer to as "sealing" the oil, gas, injected stuff.
Heck, oil used to come to the surface in "seeps" before we started collecting it. This alone demonstrates how oil is not always contained within the confining layers of salt and rock you mention even under natural pressure let alone under fracturing pressures.


----------



## begreen (Mar 28, 2012)

Any hydrologist knows that the more holes you poke into an aquifer the more chances there are for contamination. Anyone that thinks a gas well casing is going to last forever as it passes through an aquifer is deluding themselves. It is just a matter of time. How long I can't say, might be 50 years, or with an earthquake it might be 10. At the speed they are sinking these wells you can be sure there will be some sloppy casings, just like with the BP disaster. It seems insane to take this risk for short term gain. And criminal now that the plan is to sell that gas abroad.


----------



## basod (Mar 28, 2012)

As Craig noted there are elevated cancers risks from a host chemicals present in the liquid hydrocarbons, stripped and stored onsite.
None of them are any worse than the crap that used to be added to gas, some of it still is - benzine toululene(sp) etc.
We have knockout drums for gas precipitates on every NG powerplant I've worked on. None of them require air permits. The only EPA regulated tank emmission we have is on a 2.5mil gallon #2 FO tank(ULS dyed diesel). The reason most of these storage tank's fugitive emmisions are exempted is due to their size. Now having a bunch of small tanks doesn't make it better obviously.

New documentary coming out "FRACKNATION" on a low budget, no oil money, to dispell some of the misinformation from the activist kid that made "Gasland" - he has a sequel as well.
The people lighting their faucets on fire in the movie were lighting it on fire before any wells were drilled. The water was also tested(by state agency) and found to be natuarlly occuring methane in the groundwater table, not fracked gas.


----------



## btuser (Mar 28, 2012)

If I was gettin a check I'd be all for it.  Since I'm not getting one I say OFF WITH THEIR WELL HEAD!


----------



## basod (Mar 28, 2012)

btuser said:


> If I was gettin a check I'd be all for it. Since I'm not getting one I say OFF WITH THEIR WELL HEAD!


I'd for one would much rather see a well spitting checks my way than a wind turbine sucking my tax dollars on the horizon


----------



## JustWood (Mar 28, 2012)

semipro said:


> Its all a matter of time and subsurface formation properties. Yeah it would happen fast in an orange, much more slowly in our earth, faster in some places, slower in others.
> Our water supplies everywhere show increased levels of contamination from myriad sources including drilling.
> Even standard drilling practices have contaminated aquifers let alone those using fracturing production.This has been observed countless times through the new appearance of drilling mud constituents (e.g., metals, polymers) in previously uncontaminated water supplies subsequent to drilling.
> Even If we stop doing everything we do that pollutes this contamination would still continue to spread.
> ...


You're singing to the choir.
There is such a thing as shallow oil/gas above salt and strata formations.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/nyserda2.pdf
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/titusville-pa-barrels-of-oil-miles-of-mud/
I live nearly dead nuts between both these towns.
And to think my town placed in the top 10 best tasting water in the state. 150 years of exploration and still good water !!?????? Probably half that time (75 years) went unregulated.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/albany_wins_state_drinking_wat.html
There are 1062 square miles in my county with approximately 3500 producing oil/gas wells (what's that,,,, 3.5 wells/sq. mile) at depths of 800-5000'. Most of these were drilled early 70's-mid 80's. There are another 2500 wells that have been capped or abandoned since record keeping began.
http://andyarthur.org/maps/gas.html
150 years of drilling and here is Titusvilles 2009 water quality report.
http://www.cityoftitusvillepa.gov/files/2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report.pdf


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 28, 2012)

This may solve a lot of problems, no water, no truck's, no waste. The gas that is used is recoverd.
 The enviros that  are far out will not be satified until we become hunter gathers once more.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/461...urce=email_alternative_energy_investing&ifp=1


----------



## btuser (Mar 29, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> This may solve a lot of problems, no water, no truck's, no waste. The gas that is used is recoverd.
> The enviros that are far out will not be satified until we become hunter gathers once more.
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/461...urce=email_alternative_energy_investing&ifp=1


 
It proves the point that if you don't make them clean up their act they'd still be dumping on the ground and into the river. Regulation, not corportate stewardship is what funded/prompted this type of development. Horizontal drilling itself is a reaction to regulation, an attempt to lower the footprint of drilling.
I'm glad and heartened to see developments in this direction but I bet if this becomes the new norm they'll look for looser restrictions and elimination of other regulations, claiming they were ALLWAYS had the enviroment in mind.


----------



## semipro (Mar 29, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> You're singing to the choir.
> There is such a thing as shallow oil/gas above salt and strata formations.
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/nyserda2.pdf
> http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/titusville-pa-barrels-of-oil-miles-of-mud/
> ...


 
I checked out the water report you provided. Do they explain why only 6 of at least 26 contaminants are reported? Probably because these were the only ones detected but they don't say that. Its interesting that Barium shows up at 0.05 MG/L because that's one the elements historically found in drilling mud. Unless you have mine waste depositories, metal refineries, or natural deposits nearby, as the report mentions, the source is likely drilling mud.

No doubt you can have a clean aquifer amongst a lot of contamination. Some aquifers are very well defined and confined; others not. That doesn't mean that many other aquifers in the area aren't contaminated though.

I wouldn't put too much value on water "taste" as an indicator of contamination. Some contaminants have no or little taste. Trichloroethylene, one of the most common ground water contaminants and a known carcinogen, tastes and smells rather "sweet".


----------



## JustWood (Mar 29, 2012)

semipro said:


> I checked out the water report you provided. Do they explain why only 6 of at least 26 contaminants are reported? Probably because these were the only ones detected but they don't say that. Its interesting that Barium shows up at 0.05 MG/L because that's one the elements historically found in drilling mud. Unless you have mine waste depositories, metal refineries, or natural deposits nearby, as the report mentions, the source is likely drilling mud.
> 
> No doubt you can have a clean aquifer amongst a lot of contamination. Some aquifers are very well defined and confined; others not. That doesn't mean that many other aquifers in the area aren't contaminated though.
> 
> I wouldn't put too much value on water "taste" as an indicator of contamination. Some contaminants have no or little taste. Trichloroethylene, one of the most common ground water contaminants and a known carcinogen, tastes and smells rather "sweet".


You're  taking shots in the dark.
Of all the places in the world if your theory is correct should be polluted with cancer and illness. The birthplace of oil/gas! Right here in my backyard.
From Wiki.
""Non-toxicity of barium sulfate
Because it is highly insoluble in water as well as stomach acids, barium sulfate can be taken orally. It is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate.[21][22] However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.[23]""


----------



## semipro (Mar 29, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> You're taking shots in the dark.
> Of all the places in the world if your theory is correct should be polluted with cancer and illness. The birthplace of oil/gas! Right here in my backyard.
> From Wiki.
> ""Non-toxicity of barium sulfate
> Because it is highly insoluble in water as well as stomach acids, barium sulfate can be taken orally. It is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate.[21][22] However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.[23]""


 
The report you provided said nothing of "barium sulfate", just barium. Here are some more "shots in the dark" from the Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:  _"The Ba2+ ion and the soluble compounds of barium (notably chloride, nitrate, hydroxide) are toxic to humans. Although barium carbonate is relatively insoluble in water, it is toxic to humans because it is soluble in the gastrointestinal tract. The insoluble compounds of barium (notably sulfate) are inefficient sources of Ba2+ ion and are therefore generally nontoxic to humans"._

I just referenced barium because its a known component of drilling mud and a good tracer because its relative non reactive and doesn't degrade much.  Even if barium or its compounds weren't bad for you, its appearance could indicate that other nasty stuff in the source material, in this case maybe drilling mud, could be making its way into the groundwater also.  These may be the many other chemicals that water supplies aren't required to test for.  

I  have no dog in this fight.  You keep going back to anecdotal information. 
I'm just trying to convince you and anyone else reading that just because one underground water supply hasn't been contaminated by petroleum/gas production doesn't mean that others haven't.


----------



## JustWood (Mar 29, 2012)

semipro said:


> The report you provided said nothing of "barium sulfate", just barium. Here are some more "shots in the dark" from the Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: _"The Ba2+ ion and the soluble compounds of barium (notably chloride, nitrate, hydroxide) are toxic to humans. Although barium carbonate is relatively insoluble in water, it is toxic to humans because it is soluble in the gastrointestinal tract. The insoluble compounds of barium (notably sulfate) are inefficient sources of Ba2+ ion and are therefore generally nontoxic to humans"._
> 
> I just referenced barium because its a known component of drilling mud and a good tracer because its relative non reactive and doesn't degrade much. Even if barium or its compounds weren't bad for you, its appearance could indicate that other nasty stuff in the source material, in this case maybe drilling mud, could be making its way into the groundwater also. These may be the many other chemicals that water supplies aren't required to test for.
> 
> ...


If drilling mud or any content of drilling mud were to be found in water supplies so wood oil, gas and condensates . If a casing is compromised one doesn't escape and the other not !
Town/city water supplies aren't required to test for certain harmful chemicals??? Give me a break !
Now that you know where oil/gas were discovered you're free to google you're way through 150 years of land swiss cheesery to find the real truth about drilling/fracing. You can't turn your head here without seeing a wellhead or a jack pump.
I've lived it and been around it my entire life.


----------



## semipro (Mar 29, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> If drilling mud or any content of drilling mud were to be found in water supplies so wood oil, gas and condensates . If a casing is compromised one doesn't escape and the other not !
> Town/city water supplies aren't required to test for certain harmful chemicals??? Give me a break !
> Now that you know where oil/gas were discovered you're free to google you're way through 150 years of land swiss cheesery to find the real truth about drilling/fracing. You can't turn your head here without seeing a wellhead or a jack pump.
> I've lived it and been around it my entire life.


 
Public water supplies do not have to test for the literally thousands of known harmful chemicals. They have to test for only 90. (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/index.cfm).

Drilling mud is used in the borehole during drill bit advancement before all the casing is even placed. In fact once the well starts producing all mud is pushed out into the formation or out the top of the casing. Its not contaminants escaping through a compromised steel casing that are the issue. The leaks that occur are typically outside the casing in the space between the borehole and the casing. This allows whatever is in the high pressure formation or whatever is pumped in under high pressure to contaminate other fluid bearing formations above or below. Its kind of like water leaking into you basement around where a pipe passes through the wall.


----------



## JustWood (Mar 29, 2012)

semipro said:


> Drilling mud is used in the borehole during drill bit advancement before all the casing is even placed. In fact once the well starts producing all mud is pushed out into the formation or out the top of the casing. Its not contaminants escaping through a compromised steel casing that are the issue. The leaks that occur are typically outside the casing in the space between the borehole and the casing. This allows whatever is in the high pressure formation or whatever is pumped in under high pressure to contaminate other fluid bearing formations above or below. Its kind of like water leaking into you basement around where a pipe passes through the wall.


There would not be a gas well anywhere that would build pressure if this were true. Water aquifers would be undrinkable.


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Try this.    http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-...tion/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Drilling_Video.aspx


----------



## begreen (Mar 29, 2012)

Does every gas well go through an aquifer?


----------



## semipro (Mar 30, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Try this. http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-...tion/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Drilling_Video.aspx


 
Nice video.  Thanks for posting.   It illustrates well where contamination of the aquifer can take place.
1. When the borehole is being advanced through the aquifer there is no casing and the drilling mud mixes freely with water in the aquifer.
2. When "sealing" the space between the casing and borehole.  You're pumping in concrete, it takes the path of least resistance and the seal created may not be perfect. Also, the subsurface is dynamic.  Things move around.  Seals crack, etc.
3. As shown in the video, the high pressures used during fracturing widen existing or create new cracks which are potential pathways for aquifer contamination.  They are basically blowing rock apart with very high pressures.  Its pretty easy to see how this might create "leaks". 

The video shows a fairly simplified view where everything exists in discrete, uniform layers.  This is rarely the case.  Its complex down there and our tools for characterizing how thing are laid out are limited.


----------



## semipro (Mar 30, 2012)

begreen said:


> Does every gas well go through an aquifer?


 
I don't know but I'd guess most do but some don't.
In some places intrusions of igneous rock extend all the way to the surface and above (e.g. Grandfather Mountain) and aquifers don't form readily there.  Of course nobody would want to drill there anyway, not for fossil fuels anyway.


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 30, 2012)

NY State DEC rules require 4 caseings at different levels,plus cement at each stage


----------



## btuser (Mar 30, 2012)

If they provided information about the tracing elements they already use we could identify if these were really drilling problems or pre-existing problems.  Why won't they do that?  Why won't we make them do that?


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> NY State DEC rules require 4 caseings at different levels,plus cement at each stage


 
Take a look a the requirements for the failed BP gulf well. They're pretty rigorous. With human nature, money and time pressures, nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wront...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casing-Diagram.jpg


----------



## sesmith (Mar 30, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> NY State DEC rules require 4 caseings at different levels,plus cement at each stage


Regardless of how many casings there are, it's the concrete seal between the last casing and the borehole that is critical in sealing the well as it goes up through the various layers to the surface. Here's an interesting industry publication that explains a lot of this. Note their chart on the percentage of wells that leak as they age. An eye opener.

http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.ashx


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Hi sesmith

Good site, but very dated 10 years or more.
We as country need a practical way to produce energy now.
 Wind and solar decades away.


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Begreen
Life is full of risk. With out risk there is usually no reward.


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2012)

The question is, who is really getting rewarded? Customers or shareholders?


----------



## btuser (Mar 31, 2012)

Shareholder value!


----------



## semipro (Mar 31, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Hi sesmith
> 
> Good site, but very dated 10 years or more.
> We as country need a practical way to produce energy now.
> Wind and solar decades away.


 
And its always going to be decades away unless we swallow hard and invest now.
The technology is there. Its even (finally) becoming cost effective especially if the "true" costs of fossil fuel production and usage are considered.


----------



## sesmith (Mar 31, 2012)

begreen said:


> The question is, who is really getting rewarded? Customers or shareholders?


The gas companies are the ones rewarded.  The price of gas is down and the landowners, who share the risk, are getting $2 / thousand cubic ft for their gas.  The gas companies are working on pipe lines to the Chesapeak  area and Boston where it can be liquified.  They can then sell the gas overseas for added value at $12-$14 per thousand.  The gas company makes money, the land owner makes a little, owns the risk, is stuck with the problems during construction, and later as the gas wells age and leak.  The gas is sold to the highest bidder and does not necessarily help the US offset foreign oil.  Natural gas, while promoted as a clean fuel, is not, so we lose there too (though it does burn cleaner).  As usual, it's the internationally owned oil conglomerates who reap the benefits.


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2012)

The next question is, who picks up the bill for unintended consequences and collateral damage?


----------



## Delta-T (Mar 31, 2012)

we can just get those asbestos companies to pay for the clean-up. plenty of things have been thrown at us for decades with the "its all safe" mantra. Leaded gas, thalidomide, CFC's, nutrasweet....all good. Find me the drilling company exec that has his house on top of a field, and drinks the well water. Not trying to mock you Lee, I just have little faith in the powers that control the $$.


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2012)

Delta-T said:


> we can just get those asbestos companies to pay for the clean-up. plenty of things have been thrown at us for decades with the "its all safe" mantra. Leaded gas, thalidomide, CFC's, nutrasweet....all good. Find me the drilling company exec that has his house on top of a field, and drinks the well water. Not trying to mock you Lee, I just have little faith in the powers that control the $$.


 
National Academy of Science estimates the human health impacts of coal, gas and oil costs $120 Billion *annually* in the US alone. Are you happy with all the exemptions to the clean air and safe water acts that these industries have bribed and lobbied for? Is this an acceptable cost for cheap energy? Seems like a pretty serious boat anchor on the economy to me.


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Does anyone have sound practical solutions, for the energy need's of our country.

Keeping in mind reliability, availability,afordability.


----------



## btuser (Mar 31, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Does anyone have sound practical solutions, for the energy need's of our country.
> 
> Keeping in mind reliability, availability,afordability.


 Solar and wind where we can and as fast as we can, with coal then to nuclear as we smooth out the bumps. Natural gas for peak demand till we smarten up the grid.  More trains than trucks, more telecommuting than commuting, and a reasonable expectation of what energy really costs.  An electric car will be heads and shoulders abover ICE in terms of reliability.  As far as practical we could increase the tax rebate to $20,000 and cut out energy trade deficit. 

What I find interesting is the thought that once we stop using gasoline we're just going to start exporting it, so what's the sense in that?


----------



## sesmith (Mar 31, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Does anyone have sound practical solutions, for the energy need's of our country.
> 
> Keeping in mind reliability, availability,afordability.


A 2011 study by Synapse Energy Economics compared electricity generation in a "business as usual" scenario to a "transition scenario" where energy efficiency and renewable energy are significantly increased, natural gas use is decreased, coal use is eliminated by 2050, and nuclear power is reduced by 26%. The transition scenario would actually result in a net savings of 83 billion dollars over 40 years. Under the business as usual scenario, carbon dioxide emissions rise 26% over 2010 levels by 2040. Under the transition scenario, carbon dioxide emissions decrease 81% over 2010 levels by 2040.​​http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Toward a Sustainable Future 11-16-11.pdf

Now, I'm not sure that this can actually be pulled off...certainly not in our political climate, but this study is a start.


----------



## btuser (Mar 31, 2012)

The owners of the country are invested in the business as usual scenario.  If we don't burn coal a lot of people who count will lose.


----------



## jackatc1 (Mar 31, 2012)

btuser said:


> Solar and wind where we can and as fast as we can, with coal then to nuclear as we smooth out the bumps. Natural gas for peak demand till we smarten up the grid. More trains than trucks, more telecommuting than commuting, and a reasonable expectation of what energy really costs. An electric car will be heads and shoulders abover ICE in terms of reliability. As far as practical we could increase the tax rebate to $20,000 and cut out energy trade deficit.
> 
> What I find interesting is the thought that once we stop using gasoline we're just going to start exporting it, so what's the sense in that?


Sounds pretty good, I would get rid of coal as fast as I could.


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2012)

The one thing we can do right now is reduce consumption and conserve. It's the cheapest short term solution. We're starting to do this with better CAFE standards, home insulation programs, CFL lighting etc.. Freight is shifting more toward rail which is much more efficient. Solar is making very good progress also. Prices have come down and will come down significantly more in the near future. We are also coming up with ways to dramatically increase the output in a given area. And there are some interesting industrial, large scale battery system proposals that will make large scale storage more practical. As our grid infrastructure improves we will be better able to redistribute solar and wind from desert and central US areas to the coasts.


----------



## GaryGary (Mar 31, 2012)

begreen said:


> The one thing we can do right now is reduce consumption and conserve. It's the cheapest short term solution. We're starting to do this with better CAFE standards, home insulation programs, CFL lighting etc.. Freight is shifting more toward rail which is much more efficient. Solar is making very good progress also. Prices have come down and will come down significantly more in the near future. We are also coming up with ways to dramatically increase the output in a given area. And there are some interesting industrial, large scale battery system proposals that will make large scale storage more practical. As our grid infrastructure improves we will be better able to redistribute solar and wind from desert and central US areas to the coasts.


 
Could not agree more.

I think that conservation and efficiency are by far the best opportunities both short term and long term.  

We've cut our energy use for our home (electricity and space heating) and for our car transportation by more than half.  This was relatively easy to do, and its saving us about $5000 in energy costs per year.  It seems to me its the big often overlooked and easy solution.  

These are the projects we used: http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Projects.htm -- nothing exotic and mostly inexpensive with very short paybacks.  Solar is great and we have both solar thermal and solar electric, but there is no way it even comes close to the kind of savings you can get with much cheaper conservation and efficiency projects.  

I think the problem is that there is not a lot of money to be made in this area, so it gets less attention.  

Gary


----------



## sesmith (Apr 1, 2012)

Gary,

Your page that you linked to is a great read. I wish you could measure how much energy it (and the rest of your site) has saved people. I think you'd be shocked if you did. I know I was amazed personally when I just used information from your site and went through my house with a $20 kill-a-watt meter and dropped my electricity usage by a third.

This page from the US Dept of Energy makes it obvious why saving energy, especially in home heating and cooling (and especially in older building stock) is probably the biggest bang for the buck.

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ChapterIntro2.aspx

On a state level, here in NY, we're starting to see some interesting research being done on home energy conservation. This is one state funded study, which was a kind of no-holes-barred approach to deep energy retrofits on 3 houses selected in Utica.

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Page-S...nced-Residential-Buildings/Deep-Retrofit.aspx

It's being followed up by a study by a couple of Ithaca companies on a lower cost approach to the same goal, and hopefully a standardized approach to deep energy retrofits.  This kind of research should offer some standardized approaches to building envelope improvement even if the goal is not a a complete deep energy retrofit.

http://cleantechny.blogspot.com/2012/02/nyserda-grants-300000-for-advancements.html

Now if the state would just open their eyes to the REAL cost of developing the Marcellus shale gas using unconventional drilling practices...


----------



## sesmith (Apr 3, 2012)

begreen said:


> The question is, who is really getting rewarded? Customers or shareholders?


There are a couple of recipients of "rewards" who I forgot. The lawyers in Pa and NY are doing a booming business representing the gas companies and the landowner coalitions.

The DEP and other government groups in Pa are making a pretty good buck fining the gas companies for violations (around 3500 in Pa alone in a 2 or 3 year period).

The pro gas development politicians are making out well with contributions from gas interests. Read page # 10 from this publication. It shows the gas related political contributions for just this one representative from near where I live (who incidentally is very vocal in his support of gas development). I'm not necessarily stating that this publication I referenced is impartial or anything resembling that, just that political contributions are public knowledge, so I believe the list as stated is real. The publication does make very interesting reading, however. Stuff you don't see in the mainstream press.

http://www.coalitiontoprotectnewyork.org/lib/almanac/nofrackalmanac-issue2.pdf


----------



## btuser (Apr 3, 2012)

The money trail isn't surprising.  In fact, can you say it isn't proof that it's the best way to go?  If solar + wind were that great, if hippies riding bicycles were really all that when it came to producing energy, wouldn't the money trail go in the other direction, instead of a subsidy to an industry that can't make it on it's own? When is the last time a bicycle manufacturer bribed a politician to put in a bicycle path?  The fact that pro gas has the money to buy influence could be considered proof that its is a superior energy source.

But there's a downside, and we're getting to that point in the party.  We're running out of beer. 

The downright "providential" change in America's energy future brought about by shale gas has already changed the world.  If they would disclose their tracing elements when they drilled I'd be in favor of it.  If we taxed the production/consumption of it to build out the electrical grid and invest in R&D (and ironically our municipal water supply) it would truly be part of a bridge to the future for us. 

But if all we're going to do is burn it to heat a big drafty house, gas up the SUV, and export the rest we're wasting another chance.


----------



## begreen (Apr 3, 2012)

Drilling like there is no tomorrow so that our reserves can be sold for a quick profit overseas is basically, morally wrong. It benefits no one but the company and shareholders. US gas should be reserved for domestic consumption.


----------



## btuser (Apr 3, 2012)

begreen said:


> Drilling like there is no tomorrow so that it can be sold for a quick profit overseas is basically, morally wrong. It benefits no one but the company and shareholders. US gas should be reserved for domestic consumption.


 
Selling gas into the open market will reduce prices for everyone on the planet.  There's a direct correlation between world poverty and the price of energy, so selling it does in fact help someone other than the companies. Higher prices domesticaly will promote conservation.  I'm in favor of an export tax that will fund renewable research or even conservation upgrades.  If the price of gas goes up 20% but you use 1/2 as much you're still making bank.

 It also favors us geo-politically, which helps Europe when Russia tries to turn off the tap or Iran over-charges Turkey. Simple fact:  Europe will pay dearly for energy in the next century.  Reality is we could go from OPEC to OGEC pretty quickly, and the list of countries would be even less interested in USD than OPEC.  Russia Iran and Qatar account for more than 60% of conventional gas reserves on the planet.  Shale gas is as important to the dollar as Brent crude is to the pound. 

Don't think of them as gas frackers, but yankee doodle freedom fighters.


----------



## begreen (Apr 3, 2012)

Great, so third world populations swell with cheap energy. Sounds like a solution with unintended consequences. That is assuming that a therm of gas even reaches the third world after hungry 1st and 2nd world economies have their feed at the trough. If it is the next century one is concerned about, isn't that all the more reason to be more prudent now?


----------



## sesmith (Apr 3, 2012)

There also seems to be some confusion here that natural gas is somehow clean and is the answer to oil and coal.   A good article here by a well respected researcher on the subject:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b.../28/nb-f-shale-gas-anthony-ingraffea-122.html

His estimates for leakage have basically been backed up by a recent study in the Denver area where methane leakage was estimated at around 4%, which is twice the rate that was generally believed:

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2012/Colorado_oil.html


----------



## btuser (Apr 3, 2012)

Equal rights and education for women is the only thing that will keep the population in check. As energy becomes more expensive so human labor becomes more valuable, agriculture more critical, and women with no opportunity (even to own property) will continue the cycle.

As far as price, I have no doubt we'll get ours before they get theirs, but hydrocarbons in all forms are needed for an advanced economy. If you shut down 5% anywhere you raise prices everywhere for everything, from mattresses to fertilizer. If we could export to the rest of the world while simultaneously lowering our own energy needs through conservation and innovation we can make the transition to full renewables even sooner. If the wind/solar/nuclear trifecta takes off NG may end up being too expensive to even pump. Happened to oil in the 80s!

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-06/news/mn-15673_1_oil-prices-fall/2

Now, do I think that will happen? Not even close. Gas companies will jack prices and skim profits while buying tax breaks. When the fruit is dry and the husk is empty we'll be left with another hundred superfund sites and another resource squandered with nothing to show for it but an infrastructure in even worse shape than before. When we REALLY need the investment in this country it won't be there. The rich will sit in their towers protected by an army brought home, looking down on us like vermin. Simon Cowell will interview the next president. Who would be dumb enough to invest in a nation of poor? What's the point? They're too poor bother to steal from, even if you teach them to read they can't buy your products, and you don't need them now that you've got robots.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 3, 2012)

btuser said:


> Now, do I think that will happen? Not even close. Gas companies will jack prices and skim profits while buying tax breaks. When the fruit is dry and the husk is empty we'll be left with another hundred superfund sites and another resource squandered with nothing to show for it but an infrastructure in even worse shape than before. When we REALLY need the investment in this country it won't be there. The rich will sit in their towers protected by an army brought home, looking down on us like vermin. Simon Cowell will interview the next president. Who would be dumb enough to invest in a nation of poor? What's the point? They're too poor bother to steal from, even if you teach them to read they can't buy your products, and you don't need them now that you've got robots.


 
Ok, so now you have me depressed 

Actually, back in the 60's and 70's people, especially young people screamed as we poisoned our land and streams. Fast forward to today. The Cuyahoga River can no longer be set on fire, Love Canal is a story in the past (except for those who still suffer the impacts of having lived there), we continue to clean up superfund sites, DDT is no longer in use, and the raptors and brown pelicans have made a huge comeback.

I'm a little more optimistic for the future even if pessimistic about the short term future of fracking in NY state. Keep the truth in peoples faces, and continue the research. The youth in this country will eventually get pissed off as they will inherit our mess. Things will change, though maybe a little too late. In the meantime, we can all do our personal best to conserve resources and reduce our carbon footprint and use of fossil fuels.


----------



## begreen (Apr 8, 2012)

The processes may not be new, but the quantity is. The more holes you poke through an aquifer the greater the chance of something going wrong. And we don't need the gas. They have so much that they are actually considering capping some off. http://wapo.st/HstegN

The is until foreign companies can build facilities to ship the stuff as LNG to their shores. Morgan Stanley has financed the Arctic Star to ship LNG to Tokyo. They expect to make about $16.5M on the trip. http://bloom.bg/GJ0p2J  And Royal Dutch Petrolem (Shell) is looking to build a refinery in the gulf to convert natural gas to diesel. Hear that giant sucking sound? It's our resources being sucked away to build the first world (and that is no longer US.) http://on.wsj.com/Hj2qzW

Does anyone find this just a bit concerning?


----------



## jackatc1 (Apr 8, 2012)

I don't, we are now in a globular economy like it or not.
As far as building an 11 billion dollar refinery that sounds like a lot jobs now and in the future.
Plus we can ship all that nasty fossil stuff to china and help our trade imbalance,and keep all the solar and wind for our use.
PS
WE have been exporting our naturaul resouces for many years.
Lumber, coal, iron ore, to mention a few. Plus way to much corn.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 8, 2012)

begreen said:


> Does anyone find this just a bit concerning?


 
Yea, I do.  I live in an area where they plan on doing the sucking, so it hits a little close to home.  I "might" feel a little bit differently if the natural gas boom would really directly benefit everyone here.  There still won't be natural gas supplied out to the rural areas who have to mostly rely on oil and propane.  The gas will be sold elsewhere and the people here will be left with the environmental damage that will remain for years, maybe generations.  I don't see the benefit long term.


----------



## jackatc1 (Apr 8, 2012)

Not true sesmith natuural gas pipe lines are being biltout from penn.line,
thru Coventry,to Afton, Bainbridge, and Sidney. The line will supply gas to Anpenol Cable, and then up rt 8 to Chobani
yogurt in South New Berlin.
Any one close along the line can get hooked up. It's only start but you have to start some were.
The anti. gas folk's tried very hard to stop this cheap clean energy being made available to rural towns.
While they enjoy the very same gas in Binghamton and anti heaven Ithaca.

http://www.wbng.com/news/video/Leatherstocking-Pipeline-Up-For-Debate-In-Sidney--.html

http://www.wbng.com/news/video/Leatherstocking-Pipeline-Up-For-Debate-In-Sidney--.html


http://www.wbng.com/news/video/Leatherstocking-Pipeline-Up-For-Debate-In-Sidney--.html


----------



## jackatc1 (Apr 8, 2012)

I will try once more.

http://www.evesun.com/printedition/pdfs/2011-12-06.pdf

It has been approved.


----------



## begreen (Apr 8, 2012)

Gas lines locally depend on population density. I have one running about 1/4 mile from our house, but it ain't coming down our road according to the gas co because we lack the population density. They will put it in, if each of us forks over 20-30K, and that doesn't include running it up to our houses.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 8, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Not true sesmith natuural gas pipe lines are being biltout from penn.line,
> thru Coventry,to Afton, Bainbridge, and Sidney. The line will supply gas to Anpenol Cable, and then up rt 8 to Chobani
> yogurt in South New Berlin.
> Any one close along the line can get hooked up. It's only start but you have to start some were.
> ...


 
From what I've read, the Leatherstocking pipeline is a more or less local thing supplying the Sidney area with natural gas from existing conventional wells (ie, not Marcellus gas from unconventional drilled wells in Pa.).  At least that was what it was billed as:

http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/leatherstocking-will-bring-cost-savings-not-marcellus-development/

The pipelines I have been reading about lately are more like this one:

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2012/03/new-1b-marcellus-gas-pipeline-coming-from-ne-pa-to-md/


----------



## jackatc1 (Apr 9, 2012)

As I said you have to start some place eventualy gas will be gas regardless of  it,s source.
But maybe you would prefer wind/ solar. Check out the footprint.

http://www.greedylandowners.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=527


----------



## begreen (Apr 9, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> As I said you have to start some place eventualy gas will be gas regardless of it,s source.
> But maybe you would prefer wind/ solar. Check out the footprint.
> 
> http://www.greedylandowners.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=527


 
What a maroon! That guy needs some tranqs badly.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 9, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> As I said you have to start some place eventualy gas will be gas regardless of it,s source.
> But maybe you would prefer wind/ solar. Check out the footprint.
> 
> http://www.greedylandowners.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=527


 
yes, I would much prefer wind or solar.


----------



## jackatc1 (Apr 9, 2012)

What if it was in your backyard?
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/green-nimbyism

Hi Greene, not a very nice comment, I thought thiswas a friendly form up untill now!


----------



## btuser (Apr 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> The processes may not be new, but the quantity is. The more holes you poke through an aquifer the greater the chance of something going wrong. And we don't need the gas. They have so much that they are actually considering capping some off. http://wapo.st/HstegN
> 
> The is until foreign companies can build facilities to ship the stuff as LNG to their shores. Morgan Stanley has financed the Arctic Star to ship LNG to Tokyo. They expect to make about $16.5M on the trip. http://bloom.bg/GJ0p2J And Royal Dutch Petrolem (Shell) is looking to build a refinery in the gulf to convert natural gas to diesel. Hear that giant sucking sound? It's our resources being sucked away to build the first world (and that is no longer US.) http://on.wsj.com/Hj2qzW
> 
> Does anyone find this just a bit concerning?


 
You're looking at it all wrong.

It isn't yours.  They're the ones that own it.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 9, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> What if it was in your backyard?
> http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/green-nimbyism


 
It will be, at least pretty close to me (the next hill over). Enfield Energy / Black Oak wind farm is due to start construction this year. Should be able to supply half to 3/4 the electricity needs of Tompkins county. Hope to buy my electricity even more locally than I'm doing now. Currently buying wind power through Community Energy via NYSEG. The wind power is produced in NY and Pa.


----------



## semipro (Apr 9, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> What if it was in your backyard?
> http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/green-nimbyism
> 
> Hi Greene, not a very nice comment, I thought thiswas a friendly form up untill now!


 
I think BeGreen is referring to the person at the link.


----------



## semipro (May 3, 2012)

Recent information on this subject:
From _Business Insider (A peer-reviewed paper in the Ground Water periodical)_
*STUDY: The Toxic Cocktail Of Chemicals Used In Fracking Could Leak Into Drinking Water*

http://articles.businessinsider.com..._fracking-fluids-gas-drilling-marcellus-shale


----------



## begreen (May 4, 2012)

semipro said:


> I think BeGreen is referring to the person at the link.


 
Indeed, just opened this thread and saw the comment. I meant mrgreedylandowner. It was not about anyone on the forum.


----------



## TIM RUTMAN (May 9, 2012)

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

scroll down on this link to the video. WHAT A NIGHTMARE FOR THESE POOR PEOPLE

one ladies water well exploded!


----------



## btuser (May 9, 2012)

"By October 2009, the D.E.P. had taken all the water wells in the Sautners’ neighborhood offline. It acknowledged that a major contamination of the aquifer had occurred. In addition to methane, dangerously high levels of iron and aluminum were found in the Sautners’ water."

Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the D.E.P.  Over-reaching government institutions are decimating the value of private property!  If it wasn't for the pesky D.E.P. nobody would even know about this.


----------



## jackatc1 (May 9, 2012)

About time to get more current than 2009/2010.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-781728?ref=feeds/latest


----------



## btuser (May 9, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> About time to get more current than 2009/2010.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-781728?ref=feeds/latest


 
I'm sure there are plenty of people who benefit or at the very least are indifferent to the suffering of a few people affected.  I'm totally in favor of fracking the everloving crap out of someone else's land as long as my own water is safe.  Lower prices for me and I don't have to deal with it. Sounds good to me, so frack away.  Feel bad for someone who loses everything they've ever worked to get, but hey, as long as we underfund the court system I'll only have to hear about it on liberal media channels and I can filter that pretty easy. 

Here's one dated Feb 2012 with more than a single comment.  Be proud of your town.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742456


----------



## jackatc1 (May 9, 2012)

Clip is five months old, EPA all methane/ chemicals are naturaly present in NE PA.
All landowners involved  signed gas lease's.
All were offered 2x value of home plus filtration system.
And still own properties.
 The leader of the group is building a 5,000 sq ft house on the same land,
with the royalty money he is still receiveing from the gas company he is sueing.
Go figure!


----------



## btuser (May 10, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Clip is five months old, EPA all methane/ chemicals are naturaly present in NE PA.
> All landowners involved signed gas lease's.
> All were offered 2x value of home plus filtration system.
> And still own properties.
> ...


 

Who decided the value of the land?  I could tell you your house was worth $100 and offer you $200.  Would that be a fair offer? 
If they signed a lease, then I guess they have no recourse.  Unless of course Cabot screwed up, meaning they violated the lease.  Are you saying they have no recourse if Cabot violated the terms of their agreement?

You can flush a lot of stuff out in 5 months.  I'm sure if you run enough water through a well you can get it pretty clear.  You're right, they've got nothing to complain about. Stupid hillbillies.


----------



## jackatc1 (May 10, 2012)

Maybe stupid hillbillies, but I suspect slick lawyers.


----------



## Otis B Driftwood (May 17, 2012)

Webbie, thanks for having the curiosity and bravery for starting a topic
that easily can become heated ( sorry ) and partisan.

Count me in as a former Big Gas supporter. I've seen the persuasion
pieces, "Gasland" and various YouTube® propaganda reports and I have
to agree that there are too many unknowns and known subterfuge by the
industry that it's necessary to put a hold on further tapping. Of course,
knowing that favorable public opinion is now waning, the industry is putting
out all the stops to tap as far and frequently as possible before banning shuts
it out. That alone is enough to give in to the obvious question, "Why is Big Gas
pushing so hard?" The industry knows it's subverted laws and transparency
since it has much to hide. Detractors are pigeon-holed as "ignorant", "liberal",
"anti-capitalist" types who are relegating all non-conforming countries into
obsolescent panderers for foreign oil, or worse, idealist greenies routing
for sustainable energy technologies that have No Chance in Hell to work.

Vermont has just banned fracking. I can read it now: "Hippy liberals in backwards
Vermont just dissed the best friend it had: us, Big Gas." No, we're just asking for
simple answers instead of stock replies as, "It's safe! Trust us!" Right. OK.
Now, PROVE IT. Let's see the chemical "formula" lists. It took a SUBPOENA
to get Halliburton to release that list. Is that being transparent? An actor of
Good Faith? We've seen this pattern before. The whole thing smells.
As was stated earlier, they're taking the cash now and kicking the
can down the road. Sick 25 years from now? Your prob, Bud.

I find it amazing that as Americans we can spew endless exhaust in time wasting
debate regarding budgets, abortions, and other non-issues that, with a little common
sense, honesty and courage, we'd be able to traverse these issues, and out the
persons who obviously have no value for OUR property and livelihood. We live
in an era of extraction: Extraction of precious resources, extraction of our money.
These people have to earn our trust first before they can be allowed to do business
with us. We don't need strong arm tactics from bought legislatures, EPA boards,
banks. We need leadership; statesmen who believe in the system who will use
the system in the spirit it was designed to keep the public informed on exactly
what is going on and who will be affected by corporate business. The minute
information goes underground, the entire process, whatever it is, is suspect.

Again, if you doubt this pollution is happening, follow the money. If you think that
regulation alone will fix it, Think Again. I've seen the data: one state has one reg
agent for every 1500+ wells. Who are these compliance agents, Santa Claus?

For now, think I'll stick to good ol' reliable WOOD.


----------



## btuser (May 17, 2012)

At such low prices they're trying hard to slow down the tap.


----------



## jackatc1 (May 17, 2012)

Ah good ol' reliable WOOD.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion


----------



## Otis B Driftwood (May 18, 2012)

Adding to my suspicions are these new "laws" that doctors have to comply to.
Seems that after some teeth pulling, industry has published public sites that
allow medical professionals to be privy to some but not all of the chemicals
used in their processes. To get the complete list, a doctor has to sign a con-
fidentiality agreement on the condition _they can't share the information with _
_anyone else - not even the patient._ To do so would expose the medic to legal
action. Now, how the frack is a doctor going to be able to help a patient who
has strange symptoms without knowing what might be causing them unless 
he has a potential lawsuit hanging over his head? How fair is that? Remember,
this is public safety we're talking about here. Taken from that perspective,
trade secrets matter very little, especially in this post-9/11 world in which
"... we have to be right 100% of the time, whereas they have to be right
just once." It all defies logic. Then again, it's business as usual.


----------



## semipro (May 18, 2012)

jackatc1 said:


> Ah good ol' reliable WOOD.
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion


 
Sam Harris seems a little pretentious, and wrong on many counts.  
No doubt burning wood produces pollution.  There's not much that we do that doesn't.
However, I can't imagine a much "greener" way of heating my house than harvesting CO2 and sunlight in my trees and then converting it back again in an efficient wood burner. Especially, when my primary alternative is coal-based electricity.
I also think that if many of us here burned in situations where 70% of the emissions ended up back in our house this forum would die off pretty quickly from attrition.


----------



## begreen (May 18, 2012)

NPR has been running a series of reports on this topic recently. Amazingly enough there has been very little actual testing of the airborne components of communities near major gas fields. And surprise, the gas industry appears to be part of the reason why. Even if a doctor starts seeing questionable symptoms in his patients, he can't get information about what is being used to extract the natural gas in order to come up with a treatment or antidote. Recently this changed, but with a serious caveat. The doctor has to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents he or she from sharing this info, with anyone, perpetually!

In another report they tell how NOAA is finding that clean natural gas is not so clean. Lots of methane heading into the atmosphere from these wells and that really isn't good. This gas boom could have some serious unintended (or unmindful) public and global consequences without more industry responsibility.

http://www.npr.org/series/151930969/science-and-the-fracking-boom-missing-answers


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 19, 2012)

I( hope they get the fracking to safe sustainable levels as it could lead us out of energy dependence.


----------



## btuser (May 19, 2012)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I( hope they get the fracking to safe sustainable levels as it could lead us out of energy dependence.


 
There is no "us". We will pay whatever the cost, and will ALWAYS be dependent whether it comes from PA or outer space. Just our nature I guess. My dad raised 3 kids on 12k/year and most people making 100k are just getting by.

I would really like to see PA or NY get together and do what Norway did when they struck oil in the North Sea.  It's such a windfall it would be great to see people band together and make something that lasts rather than just grab/take as fast as they can and leave the peel.  As long as energy is a a resource-based equation the rich will always be in control of the rest of us.  Maybe solar will bail us out, but even then I'll probably be buying it from an Arizona solar baron.

Thank God for wood heat.


----------

