Ignatius M. Meen posted:I really should avoid assuming certain science facts are obvious enough everyone knows everyone knows them and won't say dumb things that sound like they don't. Welcome to my world. Sorry I misunderstood that, I'm really used to people literally thinking all oil will be gone in a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's also some really stupid pseudoscience getting flown under the same banner by people who will latch onto anything that could possibly gain oil companies profit as inherently evil, like Fracking. Wait slow down. What pseudoscience? Fracking, so far, has had a history nothing short of total environmental vandalism. Or are you saying that fracking itself is pseudoscience? Theres a lot of actual-real-no-bullshit boffin science that so far has suggested fracking has some very real negative side effects. (For instance the reason why theres a moratorium here in Australia on it due to all the ground water contamination and well fires and poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:19
|
|
duck monster posted:Wait slow down. What pseudoscience? Fracking, so far, has had a history nothing short of total environmental vandalism. Or are you saying that fracking itself is pseudoscience? There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater. It seems people really only seem to pay attention to contaminants after someone fracks in the area. There was a documentary on fracking in the US which while interesting, completely ignored records from the loving 1800s of gas in drinking water. In fact, the groundwater fracturing isn't even massive enough to cause the kind of contamination people accuse it of. Ever drank water from a well? Good chance that well was fracked for permeability. It's become the ultimate boogieman that ignores science for the sake of blind environmentalism while every single loving structural geologist on the planet sits there pointing at old records of the exact same problems going on for a loving century yelling "THIS ISN'T A NEW THING YOU IDIOTS" Of all the anti-oil company causes, many of which are completely and thoroughly valid, none has less of a basis in reality and yet more traction in society than the anti-fracking movement. e. To be more specific, the hydrostatic pressure that fracking puts on the rock around the pipe isn't great enough to cause leakage into the groundwater and aquifers that people are saying are getting contaminated. It simply doesn't work that way. You're fracking rock in the first place because it has poor permiability and it's not like areas that get fracked have incredibly nonuniform deposition with surrounding high-permeability rock that would allow contamination in the first place. If it did, you wouldn't need to frack it. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Osborn et al, 2011 posted:Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n = 34). Average δ13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7‰ and -54 ± 11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These δ13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and δ2H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentration samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
I read that entire paper and it doesn't conclude the way you think it does. It basically says "If any man-made fracturing is responsible for methane leakages, it has more to do with a century of unregulated extraction activites in the area" and concludes by saying fracking has bad PR but none of the evidence really supports the notion that fracking is responsible for increased concentrations. Particularly with that region, I encourage you to go look at methane being reported in wells a century ago. e. Also by quoting the section that you did as some kind of proof you've shown a profound ignorance in sedimentology since "similar geological formations away from extraction sites" doesn't imply there's gas to be found in those sites, just that the host rock is similar. In this case there is oil bearing shale in those areas, but that just means the sedimentological layer part of the same unit, not necessarily that the hydrocarbon concentration is the same. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I read that entire paper and it doesn't conclude the way you think it does. It basically says "If any man-made fracturing is responsible for methane leakages, it has more to do with a century of unregulated extraction activites in the area" and concludes by saying fracking has bad PR but none of the evidence really supports the notion that fracking is responsible for increased concentrations. The biggest problem is improper disposal of the fracking fluids. Here in Texas people pay ~35k for a guy to haul it away, and it costs ~25k to dispose of it in a salt dome. A whole lot of folk will just dump it on some quiet road in the middle of nowhere, and pocket that extra 25k... and that stuff is nasty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I read that entire paper and it doesn't conclude the way you think it does. It basically says "If any man-made fracturing is responsible for methane leakages, it has more to do with a century of unregulated extraction activites in the area" and concludes by saying fracking has bad PR but none of the evidence really supports the notion that fracking is responsible for increased concentrations. That's a bit of an odd summation of what the concluding paragraph says. They acknowledge that the mechanism of the methane contamination is not fully understood but they don't say that it's most likely due to uncased wells drilled in the past. They say it might be possible, however. quote:Particularly with that region, I encourage you to go look at methane being reported in wells a century ago. quote:Also by quoting the section that you did as some kind of proof you've shown a profound ignorance in sedimentology since "similar geological formations away from extraction sites" doesn't imply there's gas to be found in those sites, just that the host rock is similar. In this case there is oil bearing shale in those areas, but that just means the sedimentological layer part of the same unit, not necessarily that the hydrocarbon concentration is the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
It's worth noting that there are several responses to that abstract discussing the fact I discussed before, about the range of the fractures caused by fracking (a max of around 20m) not being great enough to reach through the buffer layers on the aquifers. Also: quote:Methane migration through the 1- to 2-km-thick geological formations that overlie the Marcellus and Utica shales is less likely as a mechanism for methane contamination than leaky well casings, but might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned over the last century and a half in Pennsylvania and New York. The hydraulic conductivity in the overlying Catskill and Lockhaven aquifers is controlled by a secondary fracture system (30), with several major faults and lineaments in the research area Note that fracture systems in this case can be tectonic, and outside of a 20m radius from sites of fracking, that's likely what they are. You simply can't get enough hydrostatic pressure to crack the rock outside that area. Claverjoe posted:The biggest problem is improper disposal of the fracking fluids. Here in Texas people pay ~35k for a guy to haul it away, and it costs ~25k to dispose of it in a salt dome. A whole lot of folk will just dump it on some quiet road in the middle of nowhere, and pocket that extra 25k... and that stuff is nasty. The people who did this should be forced to decontaminate the areas they did this by hand, with supervision.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I will concede that some methods of fracking lead to initial contamination. I say initial because this is the method used to frack a lot of the reserves that Russia is now pumping to Europe.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I read that entire paper and it doesn't conclude the way you think it does. It basically says "If any man-made fracturing is responsible for methane leakages, it has more to do with a century of unregulated extraction activites in the area" and concludes by saying fracking has bad PR but none of the evidence really supports the notion that fracking is responsible for increased concentrations. First off, I agree with you that fracking by itself should not be generalized as evil (there's a lot more dangerous ground water contamination coming from heavy metals and halogenated aromatics from manufacturing and electronics). Oil recovery over the last 100 years has probably been far worse for ground water, and contamination from that could certainly arise from the naturally occurring deadly junk good old mother earth has produced. That said, when you say something like quote:There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all You're opening yourself up to criticism for making a conclusion which is absolutely not true. Yes, the contaminants may be pre-existing, but changes in their concentration could certainly be due to fracking. I would also agree with you that the fracking procedure is harmless if the formulations used in fracturing were readily available for public scrutiny - but I don't think we can conclude that to be the case with formulations kept a secret as they are now. Leaving the formulation unknown also makes it difficult to know what to look for when you're trying to investigate possible groundwater contamination. In my opinion, the absolute best thing a natural gas company could do under these circumstances is to add in detectable non-harmful compounds that diffuse at the same rate as possible harmful compounds they inject or recover, in order to demonstrate whether they actually are contributing in any way to ground water contamination. A radiolabeled compound would be very simple. Or a fluorophore. Go out of your way to prove your innocence - it's nothing compared to paying for studies or lawyers. But, because that is not currently done, we're reduced to arguing from a position of ignorance; I don't know if you're completely honest (I give the benefit of the doubt and say that you're informed on this topic) or shilling (the unfortunate possibility that you're informed but could possibly happen to have a vested interest in the subject...). You have no way of knowing the contents of the fracking media unless you personally work in the industry (and even then, it's not likely unless you're high up or were involved in its formulation). I really don't think you can honestly say you know for certain that there is no ground water contamination due to the media. Moreover, I wonder how much of a contribution the process of natural gas recovery accelerates the process of ground water contamination by existing formations of naturally occurring organics. If the whole idea is to increase permeability and porosity of the rock to release the natural gas contents, it certainly wouldn't be outside the realm of imagination to think that you could increase groundwater contamination by fracturing natural barriers between the organic reservoir and groundwater. What may have been only a small leak into groundwater could be turned into a flood. If folks are making the argument that fracking is harmless because the detected contaminants were already there prior to fracking, we need to focus on seeing what the process does to contaminant concentration. If you can say for certain that that stays constant throughout the process, in every case, then I would happily agree with you that fracking is harmless. But the odds of that being the case are vanishingly small... quote:Particularly with that region, I encourage you to go look at methane being reported in wells a century ago. Century(ies) old anecdotal evidence of methane in wells doesn't really provide any good evidence for your point. Yes, people have noticed the gas was there, but that doesn't tell us at all whether or not fracking has had an impact on its concentration, or even what the gas was (god knows chemistry was far from an exact science prior to 50 or 60 years ago). You definitely can't go and say that the contaminants were all there previously and that we should completely ignore the materials used in fracturing or liberated by it as a possible groundwater contamination source. Lastly, that PNAS paper definitely does not support your assertion that fracking has just had some bad PR. It suggests (as you said) that a lack of regulation in previous gas recovery resulted in contamination. The whole process is currently very poorly regulated. It is consequently very unlikely that fracking is not contributing to groundwater contamination. The authors would not suggest extensive studies of methane contamination if their work was evidence of only non-anthropogenic contamination. Here's the conclusion for those without institutional access. quote:Based on our groundwater results and the litigious nature of shale-gas extraction, we believe that long-term, coordinated sampling and monitoring of industry and private homeowners is needed. Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level. Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wells are not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturing firms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in the fracturing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. More research is also needed on the mechanism of methane contamination, the potential health consequences of methane, and establishment of baseline methane data in other locations. We believe that systematic and independent data on groundwater quality, including dissolved-gas concentrations and isotopic compositions, should be collected before drilling operations begin in a region, as is already done in some states. Ideally, these data should be made available for public analysis, recognizing the privacy concerns that accompany this issue. Such baseline data would improve environmental safety, scientific knowledge, and public confidence. Similarly, long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface methane emissions during and after extraction would clarify the extent of problems and help identify the mechanisms behind them. Greater stewardship, knowledge, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction. BobTheFerret fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Last year I did some interesting experiments for a developmental biology class where we compared fertilization rates of sea urchins in seawater of varying pH. Sadly I don't recall the magnitude of pH difference between the control (regular sea water) and the lower pH adjusted medium, but it was a small amount, and the affect it had on fertilization rates was really dramatic. We observed far less fertilized ovums in the lower pH solution. I can't even fathom how hosed the ocean is with the gradual acidification going on. Do we have any real way of stopping this from getting to disastrous levels? Not only is a huge amount marine life going to be eventually destroyed, but you also have to consider the massive dependence we have on the ocean. I have to admit I have taken on a bit of a defeatist attitude. We're in the middle of a loving terrible extinction event (remember, the Permian extinction occurred over something like 100 000 years), that has been considerably accelerated thanks to us. Things are going to get much worse in the next few centuries. Don't get me wrong, humanity is beautiful and innovative and amazing, but do we really have the ability to stop this from happening? Can we even slow down the process at this point enough to be meaningful? From my admittedly limited knowledge, this whole thing feels inevitable - we're going to continue to experience massive losses of life and biodiversity. Sooner or later human populations are going to be drastically affected. I have to wonder, how many people need to die before we collectively realize that THIS is Orbital Sapling fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
^^^ The problem with trying to galvanize the general public about climate change: The type of pressure/fear/understanding you'd need to convey to the general public to make them really grasp what is at stake, and make them act cohesively (described by one poster as getting WWII levels of "oh poo poo, everything's at stake") is going to do what we've seen multiple times already in this very thread. People are going to shut down. How many posters already have said "well, it's hopeless, might as well throw in the towel"? This isn't about an "enemy". That won't work in this instance, because even if you get the idea across you're stuck with the "enemy" being either "us" or "climate". Both of those seem insurmountable. A better goal is getting people to realize that we're being wasteful. That we're giving up massive opportunities just because they don't make the quick buck. I think. I'm not a psychologist, so maybe not. Actually, I'd love to hear a psychologist/psych-major's take on what is needed to get society to head in the right direction. superjew posted:On the subject of methane clathrates, my research group works on developing sustainable water-degradable polymers as substitutes for petroleum-based plastics. My adviser likes to refer to the methane as a C1 feedstock, and in fact you can build methane up into small biological molecules that can also serve as monomers for said water-degradable polymers. One thing he never talks about, however, is how to harvest these clathrates, and my question to anyone who knows about this is how feasible is this idea of collecting the methane? I'm picturing a ROV style bottom trawler, connected to the surface by some kind of tether. You could probably use a vacuum system to pull in the debris/calthrate slurry. Then you'd need a system that is using a centrifuge or some sort of high-torque paddle wheel system to create cavitation pressures, releasing the Methane and separating it from the debris and sea water. You'd need some kind of heating system as well, obviously, or the whole thing would jam with ice from the pressure undercooling. The gas could be sent up to the surface on the tether. Of course, this system could feasibly collect a tremendous amount of C1 feedstock. It would also very likely stir up so much sediment that you'd effectively be bulldozing/clearcutting a massive biosphere, ripping the substrate-dwellers' environ to shreds. So there's hopefully a better way. But this way is callous and destructive, so it's pretty much the most likely way it'd go down. Cinnamon Bastard fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
I want to make a 'how to prepare for the next 20 years' megathread, between this one, the economics threads, the occupies and the coming wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
If you do, put it in GBS. I want to see that mess. "Get gun, Have Plan. (Plan is gun.)" - GBS
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The people who did this should be forced to decontaminate the areas they did this by hand, with supervision. I understand the sentiment, but it it isn't physically possible to do decontaminate or guard against this in rural Texas. Heck, we incentiveize dumping it since we have separate companies with the tanker trucks and the salt domes, instead of one big company that runs both... or maybe a government agency, since it would probably qualify as a natural monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
For Aussies, an interesting overview of the CSG situation on the ABC's site here. The industry hates it already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater. It seems people really only seem to pay attention to contaminants after someone fracks in the area. There was a documentary on fracking in the US which while interesting, completely ignored records from the loving 1800s of gas in drinking water. In fact, the groundwater fracturing isn't even massive enough to cause the kind of contamination people accuse it of. http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf "Elevated levels of dissolved methane in domestic wells generally increase in those wells in proximity to gas production wells. [...] A mud-gas log conducted in 1980 (prior to intensive gas production well installation) located only 300 m from the location of the blowout does not indicate a gas show (distinctive peaks on a gas chromatograph) within 300 meters of the surface. [...] Although some natural migration of gas would be expected above a gas field such as Pavillion, data suggest that enhanced migration of gas has occurred within ground water at depths used for domestic water supply and to domestic wells."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater. Wrong quote:It seems people really only seem to pay attention to contaminants after someone fracks in the area. There was a documentary on fracking in the US which while interesting, completely ignored records from the loving 1800s of gas in drinking water. In fact, the groundwater fracturing isn't even massive enough to cause the kind of contamination people accuse it of. See previous link quote:Ever drank water from a well? Good chance that well was fracked for permeability. Sure as long as you exclude "Science that doesn't agree with your pet industry" from science, then I guess thats true. Problem is , science doesn't work that way. quote:Of all the anti-oil company causes, many of which are completely and thoroughly valid, none has less of a basis in reality and yet more traction in society than the anti-fracking movement. Not enough to damage it, but somehow, according to geologists hired by the actual companies that do this stuff, its enough to cause tremmors. Of course what would geologists know, this isn't science!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 13:17
|
|
BobTheFerret posted:You're opening yourself up to criticism for making a conclusion which is absolutely not true. Yes, the contaminants may be pre-existing, but changes in their concentration could certainly be due to fracking. I would also agree with you that the fracking procedure is harmless if the formulations used in fracturing were readily available for public scrutiny - but I don't think we can conclude that to be the case with formulations kept a secret as they are now. They're not some huge industry secret, several studies talked about/linked on this page discuss exactly what they are. What do you think the PR would be like if they started putting radiotags in fracking fluid? Organics (such a fuels) pick up radiation really easily and you know someone would run with a sensationalist headline. Also, no, fracking can't be responsible because a twenty meter fracture radius is well within the area where there isn't any increased permiability to aquifers which are often hundreds of meters away. Deleuzionist posted:The EPA doesn't agree. Actually, the EPA does agree. Read the article you yourself linked, and you'll find that the migration they're discussing isn't from fracking, but is from disposal pits: quote:Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water contamination in the area of investigation. Pits were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the area of investigation. When considered separately, pits represent potential source terms for localized ground water plumes of unknown extent. When considered as whole they represent potential broader contamination of shallow ground water. As for the deep water contaminents: quote:Using this approach, the explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone. In other words: Claverjoe posted:The biggest problem is improper disposal of the fracking fluids. In fact, the EPA also points out what I say (note that this explanation was provided by the EPA): quote:An alternate explanation provided and considered by EPA is that other residents in the Pavillion area have always had gas in their wells. Unfortunately, no baseline data exists to verify past levels of gas flux to the surface or domestic wells.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:20
|
|
duck monster posted:Wrong We've been discussing this for quite a while, welcome to the party, you're interpreting it wrong. duck monster posted:Of course what would geologists know, this isn't science! Yeah, I mean, what kind of idiot would ignore a geologist about an issue that is purely geological because they disagree with a preconceived worldview? e. Also, the linked article is from Pennsylvania, which is the poster child for gas in the water pre-dating fracking. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
The paper was written by scientists working for the company. I can't understand how you can dismiss that. Cognitive bias is a hell of a thing dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Actually, the EPA does agree. Read the article you yourself linked, and you'll find that the migration they're discussing isn't from fracking, but is from disposal pits: Can I get a recap on this? First you tell us there's no groundwater contamination from fracking, then I copy the bits of a study that say that's not true based on elevated methane levels compared to historical data in the surveyed area. Then you tell me you're correct based on data from shallow pits but the study specifically refuses to link shallow and deep contamination as having only one source. There is a discrepancy here which I would like explained. quote:Natural breakdown products of organic contaminants like BTEX and glycols include acetate and benzoic acid; these breakdown products are more enriched in the When quoting the report: quote:In fact, the EPA also points out what I say (note that this explanation was provided by the EPA): This paragraph is right down from what you quoted: quote:A lines of reasoning approach utilized at this site best supports an explanation that inorganic and organic constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have contaminated ground water at and below the depth used for domestic water supply. However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation. A lines of evidence approach also indicates that gas production activities have likely enhanced gas migration at and below depths used for domestic water supply and to domestic wells in the area of investigation. Can you please explain how this all relates to poor disposal practices and poor disposal practices only?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 18:03
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:Can I get a recap on this? Sure! What you're seeing is "fracking fluids may be involved in the contamination" and what I'm pointing out is that the reason for that is improper disposal of said fluids after fracking. Not "as a result of fracking" but "as a result of some chucklefucks disposing of waste in the groundwater lens." duck monster posted:The paper was written by scientists working for the company. I can't understand how you can dismiss that. Cognitive bias is a hell of a thing dude. I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying that the conclusion it draws doesn't seem to be the one you think it does. Also that they missed an important piece of data, as has been pointed out in much of the academic responses to that article (namely the limited radius of fracturing). Deleuzionist posted:This paragraph is right down from what you quoted: Holy gently caress, fracking improves gas migration? Well that's news! Of course, that is a discussion of "at depth" and not "outside of the fracking radius and directly into the aquifer." In fact, that very same paragraph contains this line: quote:However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation. Organic compounds in this case being the contaminants. Also, since you bolded it for some reason: quote:the existing data at this time do not establish a definitive link between deep and shallow contamination of the aquifer. This line backs up my statements regarding contamination being from disposal and not deep fracturing. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Sure! What you're seeing is "fracking fluids may be involved in the contamination" and what I'm pointing out is that the reason for that is improper disposal of said fluids after fracking. Not "as a result of fracking" but "as a result of some chucklefucks disposing of waste in the groundwater lens." quote:Holy gently caress, fracking improves gas migration? Well that's news! Of course, that is a discussion of "at depth" and not "outside of the fracking radius and directly into the aquifer." In fact, that very same paragraph contains this line: "A comparison of gas composition and stable carbon isotope values indicate that gas in production and monitoring wells is of similar thermogenic origin and has undergone little or no degradation. A similar evaluation in domestic wells suggests the presence of gas of thermogenic origin undergoing biodegradation. This observation is consistent with a pattern of dispersion and degradation with upward migration observed for organic compounds." Is the gas itself not a pollutant that is present directly because of fracking activity? Or is it present only because of dumping? The bit from EPA you quote: "However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation." I don't see how it supports your assertion of contamination through disposal but not other possibilities since the statement is very noncommittal. quote:"the existing data at this time do not establish a definitive link between deep and shallow contamination of the aquifer." Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:39
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:How exactly? Please elaborate. If no definitive link is established, yet you establish one without batting an eyelash by stating that it's all because of disposal, then your statements are not exactly backed up. There are two different stages of contamination being discussed. I repeatedly have tried to distinguish them, but there is the upper contamination phase near the groundwater lens (which the EPA study indicated is from disposal) and there's the lower potential phase of contamination, for which there is no indication of fracking being at fault. Seriously, there is not one continuous phase of contamination and you can't point to the upper lensing and say "See! It's all fracking's fault!" This is a science, not a religion. You can have faith in your answer, but I am a scientist and this is my field. I know more about this matter than you no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, unless you're a secret geologist and not telling any of us. I think you'll find my stance pretty universal among geologists and the only reason anyone gives a poo poo about fracking is because a bunch of people got the idea that correlation = causation firmly wedged up their butt until their congressmen started taking a look, at which point the oil companies did some studies (along with numerous academic institutions) and people started screaming that big oil is lying to us. Here, listen to this starting at about 3:30, the guy giving the interview is a fantastic structural geologists and explains this all in very easy to understand terms.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
This kind of poo poo is always nice to see. I guess I take my clean Canadian air for granted. http://observers.france24.com/conte...ment-us-embassy quote:For most of this week the air in Beijing has been rated as “very unhealthy” and “hazardous” by the US Embassy air monitor, reputed as the most reliable indicator of pollution in the city. On Sunday it posted a new record: “beyond index”, as it registered 522 micrograms of particulate pollutants per cubic meter of air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There are two different stages of contamination being discussed. I repeatedly have tried to distinguish them, You: "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater." So there's no contamination from fracking? What then are these multiple stages of contamination if fracking is not one? quote:but there is the upper contamination phase near the groundwater lens (which the EPA study indicated is from disposal) and there's the lower potential phase of contamination, for which there is no indication of fracking being at fault. Seriously, there is not one continuous phase of contamination and you can't point to the upper lensing and say "See! It's all fracking's fault!" No indication? Before I go further into that please note that nobody here has made the cartoon claim you're propping up. Nobody's claiming a single source of pollution (although you very much argue for one) or blames the process of fracking but instead the companies engaged in it, to whom we owe eternal gratitude both for their dumping practices and their working methods. As for no indication, let's go back to EPA: quote:[W]hen considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing. A review of well completion reports and cement bond/variable density logs in the area around MW01 and MW02 indicates instances of sporadic bonding outside production casing directly above intervals of hydraulic fracturing. Also, there is little lateral and vertical continuity of hydraulically fractured tight sandstones and no lithologic barrier (laterally continuous shale units) to stop upward vertical migration of aqueous constituents of hydraulic fracturing in the event of excursion from fractures. In the event of excursion from sandstone units, vertical migration of fluids could also occur via nearby wellbores. For instance, at one production well, the cement bond/variable density log indicates no cement until 671 m below ground surface. Hydraulic fracturing occurred above this depth at nearby production wells. Back to you: quote:This is a science, not a religion. You can have faith in your answer, but I am a scientist and this is my field. I know more about this matter than you no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, unless you're a secret geologist and not telling any of us. I think you'll find my stance pretty universal among geologists and the only reason anyone gives a poo poo about fracking is because a bunch of people got the idea that correlation = causation firmly wedged up their butt until their congressmen started taking a look, at which point the oil companies did some studies (along with numerous academic institutions) and people started screaming that big oil is lying to us. This paragraph could have been a link or something but instead it's just a long "I know more than you do." Demonstrate it. quote:Here, listen to this starting at about 3:30, the guy giving the interview is a fantastic structural geologists and explains this all in very easy to understand terms. "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:37
|
|
Orbital Sapling posted:This kind of poo poo is always nice to see. I guess I take my clean Canadian air for granted. I'd love to see a Chinese government reading from the same time.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:37
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:So there's no contamination from fracking? What then are these multiple stages of contamination if fracking is not one? Well, there's one that exists and one that doesn't. Deep groundwater contamination from fracking being the latter kind of contamination. Deleuzionist posted:I listened a little further and the only thing I can say is that the mechanical process is not under review. The effects are, and some of the discussion regarding that by your fantastic structural geologist, especially the part around 13 minutes where he describes fracking as a possible source of groundwater contamination even when done right, is directly at odds with your statement that fracking does not cause it. Should I believe you as an expert or him? "If it's done safely, the biggest risk is that the fracturing puts a shale gas or hydrocarbon bearing rock in communication with a groundwater aquifer." Of course the next sentence makes it clear by clarifying if you're not being a stupid gently caress and fracking right beside an aquifer it isn't really an issue. Admittedly it is possible for contamination to occur if you're loving retarded about it. Deleuzionist posted:This paragraph could have been a link or something but instead it's just a long "I know more than you do." Demonstrate it. I have been.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'd love to see a Chinese government reading from the same time. http://www.bjepb.gov.cn/air2008/Air.aspx?time=2011-12-6 Fairly bad actually. This is PM10 though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Well, there's one that exists and one that doesn't. Deep groundwater contamination from fracking being the latter kind of contamination. No. What are the multiple stages of contamination that you refer to? You insinuated there are more than dumping. Which is it, only dumping or other sources as well, and if the latter, which? quote:"If it's done safely, the biggest risk is that the fracturing puts a shale gas or hydrocarbon bearing rock in communication with a groundwater aquifer." Of course the next sentence makes it clear by clarifying if you're not being a stupid gently caress and fracking right beside an aquifer it isn't really an issue. Admittedly it is possible for contamination to occur if you're loving retarded about it. "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater." quote:I have been. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'd love to see a Chinese government reading from the same time. A reasonable summary would be that the government doesn't measure PM 2.5, particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers. The embassy does. There's a bit in the wikileaks cables that mentions the government asking the US Embassy to stop tweeting about the air quality, I think that predates the Twitter ban. Not that it matters when locals get apps that report the numbers direct to their phones:  There was a point a while back when the automatic tweets from the Embassy reported the levels as 'crazy bad', as it went off the scale and into a programmer's easter egg. It's all fun and games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Wafflehound, I have trouble regarding you as the scientist you claim you are. Your arguments make no sense. Do you or do you not believe in anthropogenic-caused climate change? Can you at least accept that the for-profit resource extraction industry does not have the environment in mind, and that very often they are the chuckleheads that lack the responsibility to do things without polluting--and this in and of itself is a huge problem? Those are my only questions to you. You seem to go against modern scientists and accepted data and results, meanwhile trying to make other posters feel stupid. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand some very basic ideas grounded in geology. Geology is not the only science involved with climate change nor pollution. There's a much larger holistic approach to understanding climate change than what you're offering up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:07
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:"There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater." Right, and if you frack close to an aquifer, there will still have already been containment leakage by virtue of proximity. Therefore, contamination is not the fault of fracking. Deleuzionist posted:No. What are the multiple stages of contamination that you refer to? You insinuated there are more than dumping. Which is it, only dumping or other sources as well, and if the latter, which? There is contamination of the aquifer lens and contamination caused by deep reservoirs. The former is caused by disposal, the latter doesn't happen. The latter is also fracking. Cefte posted:There was a point a while back when the automatic tweets from the Embassy reported the levels as 'crazy bad', as it went off the scale and into a programmer's easter egg. It's all fun and games. I really hope the USGS earthquake systems have a similar easter egg. Deleuzionist posted:No not really. That's just your word. I want some sources on your assertions because you haven't been providing any. An expert would probably have some handy. This is a stupid statement. It's not like I have a stack of fracking research papers handy but it's still very well known within geology and very well understood. I've already told you where to find papers that back up what I say.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:13
|
|
Desmond posted:Wafflehound, I have trouble regarding you as the scientist you claim you are. Your arguments make no sense. Do you or do you not believe in anthropogenic-caused climate change? Yes, there is absolutely and undeniably an element of antrhopogenesis in current climate change. Desmond posted:Can you at least accept that the for-profit resource extraction industry does not have the environment in mind, and that very often they are the chuckleheads that lack the responsibility to do things without polluting--and this in and of itself is a huge problem? Yes, which is why I've pointed out PA is kinda hosed and I've repeatedly stated I'm all for massive sweeping "gently caress you oil company" legislation. Desmond posted:You seem to go against modern scientists and accepted data and results, meanwhile trying to make other posters feel stupid. You'll find my positions are generally the majority within geology. Desmond posted:I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand some very basic ideas grounded in geology. Geochronology and paleoclimatology are hardly basic areas of geology. Desmond posted:Geology is not the only science involved with climate change nor pollution. There's a much larger holistic approach to understanding climate change than what you're offering up. Right, and I'm accusing the general body of activists of ignoring that there are more sciences involved in this than just climatology. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Yo Wafflehound we get that you're some kind of geologist but I'd appreciate it if you could stop being so oversensitive and flashing your degree around every time someone disagrees with you. The fact that it isn't even clear whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change is a pretty good indication you aren't being clear, rather than that we're all a bunch of dumb fucks who just can't get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Geochronology and paleoclimatology are hardly basic areas of geology. Thanks for clarifying the other stuff. Please realize, however, that I think people posting here have the reading comprehension skills to understand the topic at hand, and you've spent pages acting all high and mighty as if you are the only one capable of "getting it". Please recognize that despite your college degree, there are others here who have studied the topic and various aspects of it for years as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
I'm ignorant as poo poo when it comes to any and all topics discussed so far in this thread, what's the best way to start rectifying this besides getting a degree in a different field or something? I've been reading various things about climate change for years but as much as it's been marginalized I've spent the last decade putting my time and energy into causes I felt I had a shot in hell of having an impact on. I'd like to pay more attention, but is there anything those of us who aren't in any related field can actually do besides e-mail articles to relatives and try to change a few minds?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
I find Skeptical Science useful for providing scientific papers and discussing arguments about global warming. Real Climate is a blog featuring posts by climate scientists. Both have sections for "beginners".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
And on the subject of geologists, Ian Pilmer got a mate to help with his book release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 00:20
|
|