News Is Gasland a Reliable Source on Fracking Issues?

[CAC1001]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=player_embedded

Was wondering if anyone knows how true/accurate this is or not? Documentaries like this can reveal some very important things I know, however they also can present blatant lies and distortions depending on the agenda of the filmmaker.

I figured I would post this in this forum since an issue like this obviously relates to policymaking.

 

[Pengwuino]

I know I'm kinda necroposting this but it's only been a year and I'm interested!

Has anyone seen this film? Is it factual or mainly nonsense? A friend of mine is interested and says he wants to know if it's true that a large majority of Colorado's drinking water is now contaminated and undrinkable. So does anyone know anything about this documtnary?

 

[SixNein]

I know I'm kinda necroposting this but it's only been a year and I'm interested!

Has anyone seen this film? Is it factual or mainly nonsense? A friend of mine is interested and says he wants to know if it's true that a large majority of Colorado's drinking water is now contaminated and undrinkable. So does anyone know anything about this documtnary?

I don't know, but I do know I love your signature.

 

[ThomasT]

I know I'm kinda necroposting this but it's only been a year and I'm interested!

Has anyone seen this film? Is it factual or mainly nonsense? A friend of mine is interested and says he wants to know if it's true that a large majority of Colorado's drinking water is now contaminated and undrinkable. So does anyone know anything about this documtnary?

Your query piqued my interest so I watched as much of the documentary as I had time to do. I don't know if all it's claims are true, or if a large majority of Colorado's drinking water is contaminated and undrinkable, and, if so, what caused that.

It does seem logical to assume that underground water would mix somewhat with both the fracking fluids and the natural gas that's released as a result of fracking. But this is a question for geologists.

I'm not really concerned about it because virtually all of my time is spent either in Florida or Connecticut, neither of which are affected by fracking, as far as I know. However, if you're in Pennsylvania, then it might be an issue since there are apparently about 35K natural gas wells in that state. And there are quite a few other states with wells numbering in the thousands.

Below are some links (I Googled, "gasland debunked"), pro and con regarding the documentary:

http://www.kioga.org/communications/reports/GasLandDebunked.pdf/view

http://www.damascuscitizens.org/Affirming-GASLAND.pdf

http://www.bseec.org/content/debunking-gasland

http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2010/06/gasland-debunking-debunked.html

http://gaslandthemovie.com/

 

[mheslep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=player_embedded

Was wondering if anyone knows how true/accurate this is or not? Documentaries like this can reveal some very important things I know, however they also can present blatant lies and distortions depending on the agenda of the filmmaker.

I figured I would post this in this forum since an issue like this obviously relates to policymaking.

This source seems authoritative, the State Of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: the film is error ridden and fraudulent.

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

Because an informed public debate on hydraulic fracturing depends on accurate information, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) would like to correct several errors in the film’s portrayal of the Colorado incidents. ...

This one is unforgivable for a documentary on natural gas drilling:

...Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in
Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in
question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.

In particular the guy shown in the trailer at ~2:20 lighting off his tap water was shown to be burning naturally leaking shallow (biogenic) gas, not fract. gas.

I thought there was some kind of civil law prevention of this kind of garbage? For instance, if I 'grabbed my camera' and 'traveled across the country' making up bogus claims about (say) meat w/ mad cow disease or the dangers of air travel I assumed I could be deservedly sued.

 

[apeiron]

I figured I would post this in this forum since an issue like this obviously relates to policymaking.

The subject is a matter for study...
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

Contaminants of concern to drinking water include fracturing fluid chemicals and degradation products and naturally occurring materials in the geologic formation (e.g. metals, radionuclides) that are mobilized and brought to the surface during the hydraulic fracturing process.

There are plenty of people worried...
http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=639652&vId=

Coal seam gas mining can cause cancer and harm unborn children, a group of medical experts have warned.
The six experts, who include a Queensland government epidemiologist, say the state's ban on the use of cancer-causing chemicals collectively known as BTEX in CSG mining doesn't protect the community from health risks.
BTEX chemicals have been used in hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, in the United States and other parts of the world to crack the coal seams and extract the natural gas.
But in a submission to a Senate inquiry into CSG impacts, which is sitting in Queensland this week, the microbiology and disease experts say BTEX exists in the coal seams.

'BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) are frequently found together in petroleum compounds,' the submission says. They are in a class of chemicals known as volatile organic compounds which easily vaporise so people can be exposed through drinking water, bathing or breathing in vapour.

The French have banned fracking...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=france-bans-fracking-2011-06-30

The French parliament voted on June 30 to ban the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from shale rock deposits known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the web sites of Le Monde and other French media reported.

But probably most conclusive is Halliburton thinks there's no problem.

 

[Pengwuino]

The public's opinion and government opinions pretty much have as much weight for me as the people trying to profit off of it. I need to take some time to read the sources posted here.

 

[ThomasT]

I thought there was some kind of civil law prevention of this kind of garbage? For instance, if I 'grabbed my camera' and 'traveled across the country' making up bogus claims about (say) meat w/ mad cow disease or the dangers of air travel I assumed I could be deservedly sued.

Isn't the documentary maker, Josh Fox, being sued by drillers and frackers and Halliburton and the sorts of authoritative governmental agencies that you cited?

But probably most conclusive is Halliburton thinks there's no problem.

Well, definitely compelling at least.

 

[apeiron]

Isn't the documentary maker, Josh Fox, being sued by drillers and frackers and Halliburton and the sorts of authoritative governmental agencies that you cited?

Googling did not produce any evidence that Fox is being sued.

There is an industry put-up lobby group as you might expect...
http://www.energyindepth.org/

Following up on the decision this week by state legislators in New Jersey to approve legislation seeking an outright ban on the responsible deployment of hydraulic fracturing as a means of harvesting clean-burning, job-creating natural gas, Energy In Depth sent a detailed letter to Gov. Chris Christie today highlighting several important facts about the technology, along with an attachment capturing comments and insights from more than a dozen state environmental regulators from both parties testifying to the safety and efficiency of fracturing.

And Josh Fox has answered his critics thus...
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

I am issuing the following point-by-point rebuttal of their claims, not because I feel obligated to address what are clearly falsehoods and smear tactics, but to show the depth of the industry’s assault on the truth and to point out their obfuscations, misleading spin on information, and attempts to shut down questions about their practices.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow my friend is totally convinced there's a worldwide conspiracy to cover up entire states water supplies being contaminated and they can't drink the water anymore. He tells me it's not his job to show proof this is happening, it's my job to show it's not happening, and he's getting more and more annoying about it. And I really don't have time to learn about a whole subject just to teach him about it... sigh.

 

[mheslep]

Wow my friend is totally convinced there's a worldwide conspiracy to cover up entire states water supplies being contaminated and they can't drink the water anymore. He tells me it's not his job to show proof this is happening, it's my job to show it's not happening, and he's getting more and more annoying about it. And I really don't have time to learn about a whole subject just to teach him about it... sigh.

Uh oh. Your friend's not a in charge of SAC base I hope?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread422784/pg1"

Do you realize that [flouridation|fracking contamination] is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous [communist|big oil-gas] plot we have ever had to face?'"
"I can no longer sit back and allow [communist|big oil-gas] infiltration, [communist|big oil-gas]indoctrination, [communist|big oil-gas] subversion and the international [communist|big oil-gas] conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Power necro'd! Just finished watching this. Junk or truth?

 

[Oltz]

Mostly Junk and Hype.

Disclosure I work in the marcellus my degree is environmental geology.

 

[ThomasT]

Power necro'd! Just finished watching this. Junk or truth?

Well, one has to skeptical about the veracity of any documentary. There are dangers involved in fracking. But, apparently, those dangers can be adequately addressed with existing technology. Whether they will, always, be adequately addressed is another question. Whether fracking will prove to be a net positive or negative remains to be determined and any assessment will depend on what factors are accentuated.

 

[mheslep]

Power necro'd! Just finished watching this. Junk or truth?

Junk.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3417871&postcount=5

 

[mheslep]

I see the author / filmmaker of Gasland was arrested in a Congressional meeting room. He was apparently trying to set up and film, but couldn't be bothered with getting press credentials and refused to turn his camera off when asked.

 

[ThomasT]

I see the author / filmmaker of Gasland was arrested in a Congressional meeting room. He was apparently trying to set up and film, but couldn't be bothered with getting press credentials and refused to turn his camera off when asked.

So who's the culprit there? A citizen for attempting to film what, imho, should be a public discussion, or the government for preventing him from doing so?

Whether large scale fracking can be entirely safely done is an unanswered question. What I don't like is what I see as industry and government attempts to bypass necessary safety requirements in the interest of projected monetary profits.

This is a scenario that's been repeated ad nauseum in America.

 

[mheslep]

So who's the culprit there?

Fox, the filmmaker.

A citizen for attempting to film what, imho, should be a public discussion, or the government for preventing him from doing so?

It is a public discussion, open the public, but apparently there is simple rule that says if you want to enter the limited space of a conference room with a camera tripod and microphones and an HBO film crew you have get permission in advance. Fox did not. Why do you think that is?

Whether large scale fracking can be entirely safely done is an unanswered question. What I don't like is what I see as industry and government attempts to bypass necessary safety requirements in the interest of projected monetary profits.

What makes you think anything has been bypassed?

EPA[/PLAIN] Proposes New Rules on Emissions Released by Fracking
EPA Revisiting, Announces Gaps in Dimock, PA Water Data‎
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/277869/20120106/epa-revisiting-announces-gaps-dimock-pa-water.htm
Pennsylvania's Fracking Program Gets Mostly High Marks in Independent Review
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/idUS266094130120100928
EPA takes new look at gas drilling, water issues
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-07-21-fracking_N.htm
Colorado oil and gas rules score high in outside review
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2011/10/31/colorado-oil-and-gas-rules-score-high.html

 

[ThomasT]

Fox, the filmmaker.

Then we can respectfully disagree on that.

It is a public discussion, open the public, but apparently there is simple rule that says if you want to enter the limited space of a conference room with a camera tripod and microphones and an HBO film crew you have get permission in advance. Fox did not. Why do you think that is?

I suspect it's because he anticipated not getting permission. Why would he not get permission? Did the people involved in the proceedings have something to hide from the public? That would be my guess. Anyway, for all we know, he did ask for permission in advance and was denied.

What makes you think anything has been bypassed?

Are you suggesting that the following are in any way comprehensive? I'm still reading them, but so far they don't seem too positive in favor of fracking.

EPA[/PLAIN] Proposes New Rules on Emissions Released by Fracking
EPA Revisiting, Announces Gaps in Dimock, PA Water Data‎
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/277869/20120106/epa-revisiting-announces-gaps-dimock-pa-water.htm
Pennsylvania's Fracking Program Gets Mostly High Marks in Independent Review
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/idUS266094130120100928
EPA takes new look at gas drilling, water issues
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-07-21-fracking_N.htm
Colorado oil and gas rules score high in outside review
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2011/10/31/colorado-oil-and-gas-rules-score-high.html

 

[ThomasT]

Ok, I've read all that stuff and I'll stick with my statement that whether large scale fracking can, and will, be entirely safely done is an unanswered question. And it's my personal opinion, which might well be wrong, that the natural gas industry and the governments involved have a vested interest in bypassing necessary safety requirements in the interest of projected monetary profits.

 

[feathermoon]

Mostly Junk and Hype.

Disclosure I work in the marcellus my degree is environmental geology.

Employed by whom?

 

[feathermoon]

Then we can respectfully disagree on that.
I suspect it's because he anticipated not getting permission. Why would he not get permission? Did the people involved in the proceedings have something to hide from the public? That would be my guess. Anyway, for all we know, he did ask for permission in advance and was denied.

Are you suggesting that the following are in any way comprehensive? I'm still reading them, but so far they don't seem too positive in favor of fracking.

He asked for permission the day before from what I read. From the CSPAN video I saw he wasn't really being belligerent either, but eh. It is a first amendment right, so if he did respectfully decline to turn off his camera then more power to him. Also, its standard procedure to allow people to film even without press passes.

 

[feathermoon]

I'm posting news articles mostly here. But here's how I see it:

I know underground temperatures don't fluctuate much, but I don't see how some cement casings can be expected not to leak, whether through contraction and expansion, or stress. Because that's all that's between the sediment layer they're fracking, and the water table.

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?_r=1

So, while were discussing whether the actual drilling method is unsafe, should we discuss the human element as well?

This site tracks accidents, but this is generally blowouts and spills. Reported ones, anyway.
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

I live in Ohio. A city sort of nearby was fined 400,000 dollars (reduced to 60k) for accepting fracking waste water for disposal into the Ohio river for excess sodium chloride levels. The water dumped into the Ohio was probably radioactive, but there hasn't been testing for that afaik.

http://www.essentialpublicradio.org/story/2011-12-01/salts-drilling-drinking-water-danger-still-showing-rivers-9616
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/560640/Wheeling-Fined-For-Taking-Frack-Water.html?nav=515

This was of course, before the earthquakes most likely caused by injection wells in another city reasonably close by.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

The radioactive drill cuttings are just buried on site in some cases if they aren't sent to the dump.
http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/05...short-creek-landfill-in-ohio-county-wheeling/
http://ohioepa.custhelp.com/app/ans...g-in-the-marcellus-and-utica-shale-formations

Frankly, I see current lawmakers with a glaring conflict of interests, mainly on the Republican side, as opensecrets points out they receive the majority of donations from Oil & Gas.

I am vehemently opposed to drilling in state parks and other public lands. I think that it should be illegal. Parks and public lands are there for the enjoyment of everyone, not so select groups can profit.

Small farm and parcel landowners here have a huge disadvantage. Even if they own their mineral rights and don't want to lease, horizontal wells can go laterally for a mile. They may have literally no choice but to have their land fracked, under current lack of regulation.

Also, while burning natural gas may produced less carbon than burning coal, current production methods nearly make up for it in their release of carbon, says an NRDC study.

Anyway, Gasland? I'd say myth confirmed, regardless of what specific evidence the documentary in question presented.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suspect it's because he anticipated not getting permission. Why would he not get permission? Did the people involved in the proceedings have something to hide from the public? That would be my guess. Anyway, for all we know, he did ask for permission in advance and was denied.

Apparently the rules state that if you are to run a camera in the committee meeting you are required to have press credentials. Some staffers have apparently stated that this rule has mostly been ignored in the past, I am unsure if that is really true. As for "hiding something" this is the meeting he was attempting to film as filmed and streamed online for the public by C-Span. At worst the chair person just didn't like they guy because of his work and decided to use the rules to give him a hard time about his camera.

 

[Oltz]

I'm posting news articles mostly here. But here's how I see it:

I know underground temperatures don't fluctuate much, but I don't see how some cement casings can be expected not to leak, whether through contraction and expansion, or stress. Because that's all that's between the sediment layer they're fracking, and the water table.

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?_r=1

So, while were discussing whether the actual drilling method is unsafe, should we discuss the human element as well?

This site tracks accidents, but this is generally blowouts and spills. Reported ones, anyway.
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

I live in Ohio. A city sort of nearby was fined 400,000 dollars (reduced to 60k) for accepting fracking waste water for disposal into the Ohio river for excess sodium chloride levels. The water dumped into the Ohio was probably radioactive, but there hasn't been testing for that afaik.

http://www.essentialpublicradio.org/story/2011-12-01/salts-drilling-drinking-water-danger-still-showing-rivers-9616
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/560640/Wheeling-Fined-For-Taking-Frack-Water.html?nav=515

This was of course, before the earthquakes most likely caused by injection wells in another city reasonably close by.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

The radioactive drill cuttings are just buried on site in some cases if they aren't sent to the dump.
http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/05...short-creek-landfill-in-ohio-county-wheeling/
http://ohioepa.custhelp.com/app/ans...g-in-the-marcellus-and-utica-shale-formations

Frankly, I see current lawmakers with a glaring conflict of interests, mainly on the Republican side, as opensecrets points out they receive the majority of donations from Oil & Gas.

I am vehemently opposed to drilling in state parks and other public lands. I think that it should be illegal. Parks and public lands are there for the enjoyment of everyone, not so select groups can profit.

Small farm and parcel landowners here have a huge disadvantage. Even if they own their mineral rights and don't want to lease, horizontal wells can go laterally for a mile. They may have literally no choice but to have their land fracked, under current lack of regulation.

Also, while burning natural gas may produced less carbon than burning coal, current production methods nearly make up for it in their release of carbon, says an NRDC study.

Anyway, Gasland? I'd say myth confirmed, regardless of what specific evidence the documentary in question presented.

Couple things,

1) Anything from that deep in the Earth has trace levels of NORM (Naturally occurring radioactive material) . When you pull a core sample directly from the Marcellus or drill cuttings the Activity level is LESS then you will find in a Real Granite countertop.

2) Not all radioative material is soluble in water Ra-226 happens to be so Trace levels are dissolved in the Millions of gallons of Brine already present in the Marcellus (~25% Water Sat)

3) This brine that is present in the formation already comes to dominate the chemical analysis of the returning water with in a day of initial flow. (as in you can test the water all you want and the chmical additives are never at a detectable level.

4) the Marcellus is between 5000' and 7500' Feet down so any actual contamination would need to travel UP that distance.

5) Water wells are less then 1500 feet down and Immediatly below them there are still water bearing levbels but these are Brine and thus salty.

6) Coal bed methane and shallow gas. is it more likely that the $20,000 water well that was put in 40 years ago has bad casing and cementing or the $6,000,000 one put in last year? We in Pa have been drilling "shallow" gas wells for well way longer then I have been alive these wells aer still within the water table. IF it was economic to remove the gas then obviously there is enough present and has always been present.

 

[mheslep]

Then we can respectfully disagree on that.
I suspect it's because he anticipated not getting permission. Why would he not get permission?

Could be, and I think likely, to get himself arrested, draw attention to himself.

Did the people involved in the proceedings have something to hide from the public? That would be my guess.

But the proceedings are available to the public, just not from that guy's camera.

Anyway, for all we know, he did ask for permission in advance and was denied.

Maybe, but not according to the 2-3 press reports I read.

Are you suggesting that the following are in any way comprehensive? I'm still reading them, but so far they don't seem too positive in favor of fracking.

My point was not to render a verdict on fracking but to show that there has been a huge amount of review both at the federal and state level - that review has not been bypassed.

 

[feathermoon]

Once again, I'll be posting links to news articles here. Take it for what you will.

I personally trust the NRDC as an accurate resource, so I'm going to leave this here. http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_09091001b.pdf

Couple things,

1) Anything from that deep in the Earth has trace levels of NORM (Naturally occurring radioactive material) . When you pull a core sample directly from the Marcellus or drill cuttings the Activity level is LESS then you will find in a Real Granite countertop.

2) Not all radioative material is soluble in water Ra-226 happens to be so Trace levels are dissolved in the Millions of gallons of Brine already present in the Marcellus (~25% Water Sat)

3) This brine that is present in the formation already comes to dominate the chemical analysis of the returning water with in a day of initial flow. (as in you can test the water all you want and the chmical additives are never at a detectable level.

4) the Marcellus is between 5000' and 7500' Feet down so any actual contamination would need to travel UP that distance.

5) Water wells are less then 1500 feet down and Immediatly below them there are still water bearing levbels but these are Brine and thus salty.

6) Coal bed methane and shallow gas. is it more likely that the $20,000 water well that was put in 40 years ago has bad casing and cementing or the $6,000,000 one put in last year? We in Pa have been drilling "shallow" gas wells for well way longer then I have been alive these wells aer still within the water table. IF it was economic to remove the gas then obviously there is enough present and has always been present.

1-3) Low concentrations can still be misleading. Are these low levels low enough to be safe for consumption? Safe to swim in? Pollutants accumulate in the food chain even if they're diluted in water. The solution to pollution is not dilution.

4-5) We know gas can seap up through these layers even without drilling a channel for it. At the pressures this gas is retreived from, I suspect it wouldn't take a big fault to cause a big leak. Just a thought.

6) That addresses the nytimes article with an arguable point, but the propublica article tells of these $6,000,000 wells leaking.



Anyway, its economic to drill, yes, in the short term. I'd contend that in the long term it could end up being a wash.

In my area, coal mining is a 'boon to the economy' and probably has been for 100-200 years, but when you consider the health care costs caused by coal pollution, when you consider the economic value lost from a river you can't fish and land that can't be sold, when you consider the overall loss of potential economic activity caused by outside companies selling our resources and taking the profits elsewhere, I'd bet anything its a wash overall.

As it is, some major banks have decided to not mortgage properties that were fracked as a rule.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/u...reates-mortgage-conflicts.html?pagewanted=all

I'd say the overall economic value of fracking is questionable still. As a resident in 'gasland' I'm concerned that the review work should be done in preview.

 

[ThomasT]

@ feathermoon

Thanks for your contributions. Personally, I don't trust anything that profit seeking companies and corporations involved in fracking, or the governements involved, have to say about it.

It seems to me to be a dangerous, ongoing experiment. I just hope that the net effect of fracking, say, 30 years from now, doesn't prove to be a negative one for the vast majority of people affected by it.

 

[Oltz]

Feather moon I would suggest looking up the difference between Fat soluble versus Water soluble one builds up in your body sotred in fat and the other is flushed every time you go to the bathroom. Non of the checmicals used are fat soluble so there can not be any build up in the food chain.

If the water were not so salty it would hurt your skin then yes you could swim in it.

Still less salt by tonnage then what is dumped on the roads every winter in PA alone.

 

[mheslep]

when you consider the economic value lost from a river you can't fish and land that can't be sold

Could you specify? What river is that? This because of modern coal mining?

 

[mheslep]

It is a first amendment right, so if he did respectfully decline to turn off his camera then more power to him. ...

Is it a first amendment right for all 311 million US residents to be inside that conference room, without restriction?

 

[feathermoon]

Could you specify? What river is that? This because of modern coal mining?

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).

 

[feathermoon]

Is it a first amendment right for all 311 million US residents to be inside that conference room, without restriction?

Well, yes in fact. The only reason there is a restriction requiring anyone to get a press pass for these conferences is so that a vast crowd of cameramen don't come to the same events, reducing room for other spectators (from what is being reported). Given that there was only one or two other camera crews at this particular meeting, I doubt crowding was the issue.

 

[feathermoon]

Feather moon I would suggest looking up the difference between Fat soluble versus Water soluble one builds up in your body sotred in fat and the other is flushed every time you go to the bathroom. Non of the checmicals used are fat soluble so there can not be any build up in the food chain.

If the water were not so salty it would hurt your skin then yes you could swim in it.

Still less salt by tonnage then what is dumped on the roads every winter in PA alone.

We both know the crazy state of roads on top of roads in PA. That's hardly news. Haha..

I'd love to see a listing of all the chemicals used in fracking categorized by their solubility. You're suggesting, for instance, that aromatic hydrocarbons aren't fat soluble? Because they surely are, just as one example, and surely were a fraction of the untreated waste water that's been dumped into rivers (and while it may be a fraction, that adds up when we're talking about tens of thousands of gallons per day).

Be careful not to misdirect away from the dangers posed by these chemicals. They also are acute toxins, carcinogens, etc. What happens to areas that are used as holding ponds for these chemicals, exactly? What happened within the immediate areas of water treatment plant drainage? What happens near legal or illegal onsite disposal?

 

[Oltz]

We both know the crazy state of roads on top of roads in PA. That's hardly news. Haha..

I'd love to see a listing of all the chemicals used in fracking categorized by their solubility. You're suggesting, for instance, that aromatic hydrocarbons aren't fat soluble? Because they surely are, just as one example, and surely were a fraction of the untreated waste water that's been dumped into rivers (and while it may be a fraction, that adds up when we're talking about tens of thousands of gallons per day).

Be careful not to misdirect away from the dangers posed by these chemicals. They also are acute toxins, carcinogens, etc. What happens to areas that are used as holding ponds for these chemicals, exactly? What happened within the immediate areas of water treatment plant drainage? What happens near legal or illegal onsite disposal?

First Nobody has ever legally released "Untreated" waste fluid into a stream or river. Prior to May 19, 2011 there were many Treatment plants that were permitted to remove the heavy metals and hazardous chemicals through chemically induced precipitation. These plants could and did remove everything from Iron to Strontium as well as "detergents and surfactants" which are of course the chemicals you are worried about.

The only "untreated" portion of the water was the salt as you should know there are really only 2 ways to remove salt from water (neither being economical in PA) evaporation or reverse osmosis. Since the salt can not and could not be removed the plants had a permitted amount they could discharge per day into surface water. This permit was heavily monitored and researched prior to being granted. It was based on flow rates in the affected stream/river as well as aggregate of other plants on the body of water. There is a constant network of level gauges remotly monitored and if the flow rate falls below a certain point the plants are shut down or restricted until flow resumes.

This permitted amount was based on achieving lower then drinking water standards of salt content immediatly downstream of the effluent.

 

[feathermoon]

First Nobody has ever legally released "Untreated" waste fluid into a stream or river. Prior to May 19, 2011 there were many Treatment plants that were permitted to remove the heavy metals and hazardous chemicals through chemically induced precipitation. These plants could and did remove everything from Iron to Strontium as well as "detergents and surfactants" which are of course the chemicals you are worried about.

The only "untreated" portion of the water was the salt as you should know there are really only 2 ways to remove salt from water (neither being economical in PA) evaporation or reverse osmosis. Since the salt can not and could not be removed the plants had a permitted amount they could discharge per day into surface water. This permit was heavily monitored and researched prior to being granted. It was based on flow rates in the affected stream/river as well as aggregate of other plants on the body of water. There is a constant network of level gauges remotly monitored and if the flow rate falls below a certain point the plants are shut down or restricted until flow resumes.

This permitted amount was based on achieving lower then drinking water standards of salt content immediatly downstream of the effluent.

Considering that a listing of fracking chemicals wasn't even available until last year in Pennsylvania, I find it impressive that they were able to test for the efficacy of city water treatment plants cleaning industrial wastes.

I didn't actually intend to say untreated, I admit. I mean to be very accurate about this topic, and there are many points to make within the scope of it. Water treatment plants do treat the fluids--I mean to say that they are not necessarily equipped to fully remove the pollutants. I'll come back to this post later today when I have more time.

 

[mheslep]

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 into the water shed, and not from coal mining - another reason to prefer natural gas.

 

[mheslep]

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]

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]

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 into 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]

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]

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]

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 let's 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 without surface spills or bad well design fracing can not contaminate anything.

 

[ThomasT]

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]

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]

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]

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 without 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]

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]

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]

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.