Register to reply

How true/accurate is Gasland

by CAC1001
Tags: gasland, true or accurate
Share this thread:
mheslep
#37
Feb7-12, 01:45 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by feathermoon View Post
The Ohio. In addition to multiple coal plants releasing mercury into the river 24/7, every few months there is a slurry spill inevitably into one of its tributaries. This, in addition to whatever runoff is present from mountains dotted with 200 years of mines.

Not to mention tributaries buried in the newer practice of mountain top removal. In this regards, modern coal mining is more damaging than ever (while providing up to 100,000 less jobs in the process).
What I read is that most of pollution in the Ohio river comes from sewage and agriculture runoff. Mercury is a problem, but that comes from coal plant combustion into the air that then deposits in to the water shed, and not from coal mining - another reason to prefer natural gas.
mheslep
#38
Feb7-12, 01:49 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by feathermoon View Post
Well, yes in fact.
No it is not in fact. Restrictions can be levied, permits required, for the simple reason that if too many people attempt to express their first amendment rights at the same place and time they necessarily deprive others of their first amendment rights.

This has grown silly, as I think any discussion about Fox and Gasland must eventually become.
feathermoon
#39
Feb7-12, 04:56 PM
P: 60
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
No it is not in fact. Restrictions can be levied, permits required, for the simple reason that if too many people attempt to express their first amendment rights at the same place and time they necessarily deprive others of their first amendment rights.

This has grown silly, as I think any discussion about Fox and Gasland must eventually become.
Considering that's almost exactly what I just said, then yes this is silly.

I'm not really interested in what happens to one filmmaker anyway except if it sets a legal precedent. I'm happy to leave this discussion behind because I feel it distracts from other fracking topics that merit discussion.
ThomasT
#40
Feb7-12, 09:00 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
What I read is that most of pollution in the Ohio river comes from sewage and agriculture runoff. Mercury is a problem, but that comes from coal plant combustion into the air that then deposits in to the water shed, and not from coal mining - another reason to prefer natural gas.
I lived on the Ohio river for the first 17 years of my life, in an, at the time, pretty heavily industrialized area (Cincinnati) a few hundred miles downstream from major coal mining concentrations in Ohio and Pennsylvania. During my time there the water of the Ohio river was pretty much toxic, afaik. Sewage and agriculture have a lot to do with it. But the contribution from mine drainage was also significant, afaik.

Quantifications of this are, I would suppose, on the internet. I'm not going to look them up. My point is that I think that what feathermoon said about this is essentially, if not exactly, true.

Anyway, I do agree with your point that natural gas is preferrable to coal.

The unanswered question concerns the long term effect that fracking will have on the potable water supplies of a rather large portion of the US population.

We can, and should to a certain extent, imo, treat it as a scientific question ... and continue the experiment.

However, because it's potentially such a dangerous practice, and because so many people are potentially at risk, then I think that tight oversight and regulation of the natural gas industry is called for.

As for the OP. People should be aware of the dangers of fracking, and I think that the documentary, while factually wrong wrt certain things, does what documentaries of this sort are intended to do ... it raises the public consciousness wrt a certain, potential problem.

I think that the best course of action is to not panic, continue fracking, continue innovating wrt this technology, and watch it very very closely.
DrClapeyron
#41
Feb8-12, 02:32 AM
P: 128
I can't fathom how fracturing rocks 7,000+ ft. below the surface are contaminating aquifers 500 ft. below ground surface. It is far fetched. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some shoddy casing jobs going on which might lead to some sort of contamination.

I would also consider the geology of Pennsylvania, particularly the east. There are a number of known petroleum seeps in the area. There are no studies showing whether petroleum seeps are responsible for any increased natural gas concentrations in water wells.

I doubt the claims of some Pennsylvania land owners in regard to water well contamination because it seems to be only them out of all the various shale formations being fractured; including some shallow formations in Oklahoma.

Overall, I think the message behind Gasland is a publicity stunt and that any claims of water well contamination by natural gas are false, due to natural causes, or due to humna causes other than rock fracturing.
ThomasT
#42
Feb8-12, 03:26 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Overall, I think the message behind Gasland is a publicity stunt and that any claims of water well contamination by natural gas are false, due to natural causes, or due to human causes other than rock fracturing.
I think that this is an irresponsible position to take. Afaik, it hasn't been definitively demonstrated that fracking is harmless. Until it has, then it's an open question and an ongoing experiment that, imo, should be treated as a dangerous one that should involve very close governmental supervision and regulation.

There's lots of money to be made from natural gas, and because of this it can be expected that businesses and governments involved with it will lie and distort the truth in the interest of monetary profit and to the detriment of the populace.

I think it's wise to be skeptical of anything that the natural gas industry has to say about the practice of fracking, and of any government sponsored papers which support that practice.
Oltz
#43
Feb8-12, 06:50 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think that this is an irresponsible position to take. Afaik, it hasn't been definitively demonstrated that fracking is harmless. Until it has, then it's an open question and an ongoing experiment that, imo, should be treated as a dangerous one that should involve very close governmental supervision and regulation.

There's lots of money to be made from natural gas, and because of this it can be expected that businesses and governments involved with it will lie and distort the truth in the interest of monetary profit and to the detriment of the populace.

I think it's wise to be skeptical of anything that the natural gas industry has to say about the practice of fracking, and of any government sponsored papers which support that practice.

My Bold..
Can you definitively demonstrated that ANYTHING is harmless ?

AFAIK Nothing in this world is harmless even Oxygen can kill you.

Nobody wants to hurt people nobody wants to hurt the environment just to get a profit.

It is bad bussiness to have your name in the news it is poor planning because guess what the company is not going to just go ok well we are done here lets close up and go under since we can not move to the next play.

Ground water Hydrology is a complex system but it still obeys all of the basic laws involved in fluid dynamics. Heavier fluids will move down and less dense fluids willl move up until a barrier is reached.

The heavy salt water >10 lbs/gal that is already present over a mile down is not suddenly going to decide it need to be on top of the freshwater.

Keep in mind that permiabilities are in the range of 10^-6 ft/day or 0.000365 Feet Per YEAR.


Natural Gas that has been trapped for millions of years will move given the chance but pressure transient tells us that fluid will move from High Pressure to Low pressure. Thus Natural gas will preferably flow towards the low pressure with in the well rather then try to go upwards through the rock as it has been trying for millions of years.

The purpose of fracing is to create a network of micro fractures that will allow the expansion of your lower pressure gradient and increase the surface area to which gas will flow. Once the gas reaches a connected fracture it quickly can evacuate the area leaving still lower pressure.

Pressure dependant premiability allows for greater "suck" on the fluid like a straw so it can be drawn at greater rates then the natural perm of the rock.

By the same token if the well is flowing into a line at 500 PSI and the aquifer is 2000 PSI then even with faulty casing the fluid will flow up the pipe as well as draw in fluid from the aquifer.

Where people get into trouble is when they have a well shut in that has faulty casing/cement at this point you have created a pressure gradient up the well and into the lower pressure rock layer the rates and amounts will be dependant on the fluid density and pressure gradient.

Casing and cementing practice is the most important part with out surface spills or bad well design fracing can not contaminate anything.
ThomasT
#44
Feb8-12, 07:23 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
Nobody wants to hurt people nobody wants to hurt the environment just to get a profit.
I think you're right about nobody wanting to hurt anybody. But I'm skeptical about whether corporations place the welfare of people and the environment above profits.

As I mentioned, it's an ongoing experiment. I just hope that the governments involved, and especially the federal government, keep a close watch on it and regulate it accordingly.
DrClapeyron
#45
Feb8-12, 11:29 PM
P: 128
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think that this is an irresponsible position to take. Afaik, it hasn't been definitively demonstrated that fracking is harmless. Until it has, then it's an open question and an ongoing experiment that, imo, should be treated as a dangerous one that should involve very close governmental supervision and regulation.
That's absurd! You are basically saying that it is a defendant's job to prove the plaintiffs case.

And don't you think the people making environmental claims against fracking having something to monetarily gain? Shouldn't we hold their claims with the same skepticism you say we should hold natural gas companies to?
feathermoon
#46
Feb9-12, 01:08 AM
P: 60
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
That's absurd! You are basically saying that it is a defendant's job to prove the plaintiffs case.

And don't you think the people making environmental claims against fracking having something to monetarily gain? Shouldn't we hold their claims with the same skepticism you say we should hold natural gas companies to?
No, he's saying the defendant should disprove it. Not an unrealistic expectation. You'd think one would have to definitively prove the safety of what they were doing before they could do it.

The people making environmental claims would probably be happy to break even with their health and land. Strawman: abuse victims also are viewed with skepticism and stand to make monetary gain, is this the best course?
Oltz
#47
Feb9-12, 06:35 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by feathermoon View Post
No, he's saying the defendant should disprove it. Not an unrealistic expectation. You'd think one would have to definitively prove the safety of what they were doing before they could do it.

The people making environmental claims would probably be happy to break even with their health and land. Strawman: abuse victims also are viewed with skepticism and stand to make monetary gain, is this the best course?
The point is both side are looking to make a profit its called bussiness. No comments on the actual facts I posted just supports the fact that there is science that would have fracing with out other fundamental flaws in the well construction cause contamination.

And again can you Prove anything is safe? No.

The burden is on those claiming Harm to provide evidence of supposed harm not on the accused party to prove it is harmless.

I could accuse you of dumping Gasoline in my pond and say she can't prove she didn't so she must have done it.
mheslep
#48
Feb9-12, 11:29 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Yes, I mean how do we really know that feathermoon did not dump any gasoline on Oltz's pond? I'm skeptical. I just hope the federal government will keep a close watch on feathermoon's activities and regulate accordingly.
ThomasT
#49
Feb10-12, 01:38 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Shouldn't we hold their claims with the same skepticism you say we should hold natural gas companies to?
Yes, I agree. That's why I view it as an ongoing experiment. Maybe it's not as dangerous as it now seems to me to be. Maybe the natural gas companies will do everything they should to ensure that they don't contaminate water supplies. Maybe considerations of the potential danger to the water supply have been blown out of proportion. I hope so.

What I'd like to see happen, along with the development of natural gas resources and technology, is a massive government investment in wind and solar alternatives which, if ever implementable on a massive scale, would employ many more people than the natural gas, oil, and nuclear industries combined, without the associated problems and dangers, and potentially make energy so cheap that it ceases to be a factor in people's budgets and governmental policies.
DrClapeyron
#50
Feb10-12, 06:21 PM
P: 128
Quote Quote by feathermoon View Post
No, he's saying the defendant should disprove it. Not an unrealistic expectation. You'd think one would have to definitively prove the safety of what they were doing before they could do it.

The people making environmental claims would probably be happy to break even with their health and land. Strawman: abuse victims also are viewed with skepticism and stand to make monetary gain, is this the best course?
What's the case against hydraulic fracturing? People want to demonize the process because they think it could be harmful, not because they have any compelling evidence saying so. It is pathological skepticism against the oil and gas industry like what is going on in that one part of Pennsylvania that leads people to make such claims.

There are many arguements which could be made to explain the environmental harm that has allegedly taken place. So yes, in effect he is asking the oil and gas companies to prove a plaintiffs case because they cannot prove their own case.
ThomasT
#51
Feb11-12, 12:43 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
It is pathological skepticism against the oil and gas industry ...
I think it's a good idea to be skeptical.
Here's a couple things on this:
NY Times article
Yale e360 discussion with comments
mheslep
#52
Feb11-12, 04:44 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think it's a good idea to be skeptical.
Here's a couple things on this:
NY Times article
That reporter, Urbina, really can't be trusted on the subject, according to the NY Times itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/op...rthursbrisbane
ThomasT
#53
Feb11-12, 06:29 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
That reporter, Urbina, really can't be trusted on the subject, according to the NY Times itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/op...rthursbrisbane
Thanks for the link. The plot thickens. Figuring out who can and can't be trusted can be a daunting task. Is this emerging as another sort of "global warming" type debate where you've got the obvious vested interests at odds, and a bunch of credentialed scientists in the middle saying different things?

My current take is that the thread topic, Gasland, raised public awareness of what might be an important issue. Is fracking something that should be more closely monitored and regulated by government than it currently is? I don't know. So if there's room for error, then it seems wise to err on the side of caution.
Greg Bernhardt
#54
Feb16-12, 09:28 PM
Admin
Greg Bernhardt's Avatar
P: 9,574
It's not fracking's fault, study says
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ult-study-says


Register to reply