Your view on shale gas exploration ?

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: Fray on August 15, 2014, 11:24:26 PM

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 10:48:19 AM

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Although there are some places in the world that it is thought that the edges of tectonic plates sit, this is not a 100% known fact. Also there are some places where earthquakes are more common, but in reality earthquakes can happen in any place at any time.

If fracking is done in places where the risks of earthquakes is greater, then more precaution can be taken to protect against the effects of earthquakes; similar to what is done to buildings in these kinds of places.

Trust me , the so called Vrancea area is at the edge of 3 not two tectonic plates.

Quote

Vrancea seismic zone is located in Romania at the South-Easter Carpathians bend, where at least three major tectonic units are in contact: East Europen Plate, Intra-Alpine Plate and Moesian Plate. The seismicity of the Vrancea zone consist of both crustal and intermediate-depth earthquakes. The crustal events are moderate (M w ≤ 5.5) and generally occur in clusters in space (the subzones Râmnicu Sărat and Vrâncioaia, situated in the Vrancea epicentral area and adjacent to it) and in time (main shocks accompanied by aftershocks and sometimes by foreshocks or swarms). Seismic activity in Râmnicu Sărat zone consist of shallow earthquakes with moderate magnitudes M s ≤ 5.2 (Radu, 1979), wich frequently occur in clusters.

Fray

full member

Activity: 209

Merit: 100

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 10:48:19 AM

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Although there are some places in the world that it is thought that the edges of tectonic plates sit, this is not a 100% known fact. Also there are some places where earthquakes are more common, but in reality earthquakes can happen in any place at any time.

If fracking is done in places where the risks of earthquakes is greater, then more precaution can be taken to protect against the effects of earthquakes; similar to what is done to buildings in these kinds of places.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: newflesh on August 15, 2014, 09:51:17 AM

Drillers are illegally using diesel fuel to frack, doctoring records to hide violations: report

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/15/drillers-are-illegally-using-diesel-fuel-to-frack-doctoring-records-to-hide-violations-report/

" A new report charges that several oil and gas companies have been illegally using diesel fuel in their hydraulic fracturing operations, and then doctoring records to hide violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report, published this week by the Environmental Integrity Project, found that between 2010 and July 2014 at least 351 wells were fracked by 33 different companies using diesel fuels without a permit. The Integrity Project, an environmental organization based in Washington, D.C., said it used the industry-backed database, FracFocus, to identify violations and to determine the records had been retroactively amended by the companies to erase the evidence".

...

"The report asserts that the industry data shows that the companies admitted using diesel without the proper permits. The Integrity Project's analysis, the report said, then showed that in some 30 percent of those cases, the companies later removed the information about their diesel use from the database.

"What's problematic is that this is an industry that is self-reporting and self-policing," said Mary Greene, senior managing attorney for the environmental organization. "There's no federal or state oversight of [filings with FracFocus]."

The article doesn't actually say what you assert as fact. It lists those ALLEGATIONS, then debunks them.

Cheers!

newflesh

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Drillers are illegally using diesel fuel to frack, doctoring records to hide violations: report

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/15/drillers-are-illegally-using-diesel-fuel-to-frack-doctoring-records-to-hide-violations-report/

" A new report charges that several oil and gas companies have been illegally using diesel fuel in their hydraulic fracturing operations, and then doctoring records to hide violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report, published this week by the Environmental Integrity Project, found that between 2010 and July 2014 at least 351 wells were fracked by 33 different companies using diesel fuels without a permit. The Integrity Project, an environmental organization based in Washington, D.C., said it used the industry-backed database, FracFocus, to identify violations and to determine the records had been retroactively amended by the companies to erase the evidence".

...

"The report asserts that the industry data shows that the companies admitted using diesel without the proper permits. The Integrity Project's analysis, the report said, then showed that in some 30 percent of those cases, the companies later removed the information about their diesel use from the database.

"What's problematic is that this is an industry that is self-reporting and self-policing," said Mary Greene, senior managing attorney for the environmental organization. "There's no federal or state oversight of [filings with FracFocus]."

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 03:05:58 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 19, 2014, 02:59:34 PM

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 10:48:19 AM

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Wouldn't it be a team of experts that mapped out the areas that had valuable energy deposits, and determined the subset of them in which it was safe to drill?

The days of wildcatters going out and drilling where ever they wanted are long over. That doesn't work with fracking anyway.

About those experts... I've seen so many different opinions about the explorations in that area that I won't take anyone side.
And there were a lot of people that were indeed specialists in earthquakes, not the casual guest to a talk show , people who worked in the INFP for a long time and they still had different opinions.

Hmm...yeah "exploration" provides physical cores, which tells the geologists a lot about what's down there. traditional, wells were drilled and a lot turned out to be "dry holes." Fracking, I think pretty much every time they drill they frack.

The effects of fracking liquids disposal on quake frequency, last I heard, were not clearly understood. So there would be no certainty in guidance on that issue.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: Spendulus on June 19, 2014, 02:59:34 PM

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 10:48:19 AM

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Wouldn't it be a team of experts that mapped out the areas that had valuable energy deposits, and determined the subset of them in which it was safe to drill?

The days of wildcatters going out and drilling where ever they wanted are long over. That doesn't work with fracking anyway.

About those experts... I've seen so many different opinions about the explorations in that area that I won't take anyone side.
And there were a lot of people that were indeed specialists in earthquakes, not the casual guest to a talk show , people who worked in the INFP for a long time and they still had different opinions.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: niothor on June 19, 2014, 10:48:19 AM

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Wouldn't it be a team of experts that mapped out the areas that had valuable energy deposits, and determined the subset of them in which it was safe to drill?

The days of wildcatters going out and drilling where ever they wanted are long over. That doesn't work with fracking anyway.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: equipoise on June 19, 2014, 07:43:30 AM

^Isn't the hydraulic fracturing excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm)? It seems they passed something similar here and there may be no ecological expertise needed for hydraulic fracturing. I was in Texas A&M and the taste of the water... I'm not sure if it's a pollution or just the natural taste of your drinking water, but it's definitely not to my taste.

Edit: I forgot to add about the smell of the drinking water there. Both the taste and the smell are hard to describe.

Quite a few places that produce bad tasting and bad smelling water naturally. There are a variety of reasons. Not related to safety.

Generally one would not consider injection of fluids at 5000-10k depth in concrete pressure sealed wells to affect underground water at 200-1000 feet.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

shogdite

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

LIR Dev. www.letitride.io

Quote from: tvbcof on June 17, 2014, 02:25:07 AM

Quote from: shogdite on June 17, 2014, 12:34:51 AM

We've polluted our planet enough, seems a bit backward digging up that dirty black stuff.

Why not stick a load of solar panels across the Sahara desert?

Don't worry. The rapture is going to happen pretty soon so it won't matter. Only Godless heathens (and Communists) worry about changes in the makeup atmosphere.

Phew, as a sowshalist I was beginning to get a bit scared. May the Koch brothers deliver us from evil.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Right now, environmental damage due to shale gas extraction is getting more and more noticeable in regions such as Canada. The ground water has been made unusable in the regions where gas extraction is being made. Huge amounts of methane are being released in to the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, as well as to the local air pollution.

equipoise

hero member

Activity: 794

Merit: 1000

Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable

^Isn't the hydraulic fracturing excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm)? It seems they passed something similar here and there may be no ecological expertise needed for hydraulic fracturing. I was in Texas A&M and the taste of the water... I'm not sure if it's a pollution or just the natural taste of your drinking water, but it's definitely not to my taste.

Edit: I forgot to add about the smell of the drinking water there. Both the taste and the smell are hard to describe.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: equipoise on June 17, 2014, 04:14:41 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 17, 2014, 04:07:53 PM

...political or money interests could actually attempt to frack in unsuitable areas...

this

What I know is that there are extensive geologist reports done before any drilling, not just to determine where the oil deposits are, but obviously to avoid unstable areas. These reports are engineering reports, not politically oriented things.

Maybe they should be made public? Or if they didn't exist or someone refused to make them pubiic, that would be telling.

I couldn't say what the result of that would be, it might not support the anti-fracking lobby. It might support some of their ideas but not others. All I can tell you is that in Texas - you know we have a long history of producing oil - this kind of thing such as "drilling without caring about the unstable ground formations" would not be tolerated.

To get an idea of the extent of the regulation, say if a roughneck working on a fracking job was told to mix concrete and pour it down the hole, (essential for protecting the underground water from contamination) but he didn't. He signed the work log asserting he did do it, but lied.

That's a criminal offense - jail time.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: equipoise on June 17, 2014, 04:14:41 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 17, 2014, 04:07:53 PM

...political or money interests could actually attempt to frack in unsuitable areas...

this

I'd be the first to object to that if it happened around here. I know sometimes things go wrong with those wells, any one that's worked out there can tell stories. But that's way way different than putting a well down a mile in unstable ground.

equipoise

hero member

Activity: 794

Merit: 1000

Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable

Quote from: Spendulus on June 17, 2014, 04:07:53 PM

...political or money interests could actually attempt to frack in unsuitable areas...

this

bitgold

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 250

All fossil fuels are only temporary solutions.

Nuclear is the future. Fusion is the savior.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: equipoise on June 17, 2014, 03:03:33 PM

Yes, it depends on the technology and the geological factors of the place. Wikipedia: "A challenge to preventing pollution is that shale gas extractions varies widely in this regard, even between different wells in the same project; the processes that reduce pollution sufficiently in one extraction may not be enough in another." The current hydraulic fracturing technology is not safe at all especially with this geology and they want to extract it with hydraulic fracturing.

Simple question, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that companies working in the field with a staff of PhD geologists would advise on? They would say drill here, not there, based on stability of formations, etc. I thought this was the only way it was done.

I suppose it is possible that political or money interests could actually attempt to frack in unsuitable areas. Hard for me to believe, here in Texas this is highly regulated. Here 'anti fracking' interests use lots of appeals to fear, outright false arguments and so forth. In other words, they poorly understand science and engineering, and argue quite literally against the opinions of PdDs in the field with decades of experience.

equipoise

hero member

Activity: 794

Merit: 1000

Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable

Yes, it depends on the technology and the geological factors of the place. Wikipedia: "A challenge to preventing pollution is that shale gas extractions varies widely in this regard, even between different wells in the same project; the processes that reduce pollution sufficiently in one extraction may not be enough in another." The current hydraulic fracturing technology is not safe at all especially with this geology and they want to extract it with hydraulic fracturing.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

It depends on technology. Anhydrous fracking is safe if everything is running according to technology. But this technology is relatively costly, so the most of wells are made using the water solutions as reagents.

P.S. Anhydrous fracking uses liquid propane or butane instead of water. It's now used in USA (Texas), China, Canada and there are plans to use it in Russia, Austria and India.

equipoise

hero member

Activity: 794

Merit: 1000

Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable

It's a karst topography there with earth movements, deep crevices and faults - no way to keep the pollution contained.

Topic: Your view on shale gas exploration ? (Read 18685 times)