Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 12, 2009 at 14:51

Yes, I remember that. And thank you for posting it again. I know redundancy gets tedious. (I DO know about that kind of redundancy from my own paperwork ... federal, state & local. But "they" get off cheap when I have to do it. lol)

What about the processes, though, of frac'ing and disposal. Are they one & the same, or considered 2 distinct processes, with 2 sets (or subsets, whichever) of the code? Is the pending repeal targeting both or just the one?

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 12, 2009 at 15:34

No, I'm not asking if fracing is disposal, I know it's not. I'm asking whether the 2 processes have separate codes.

That said, I did find this on your link ...

"Additionally, IOGCC member states have all stated that there have been no cases where hydraulic fracturing has been verified to have contaminated drinking water.

Effective state regulation has made hydraulic fracturing a safe and environmentally-sound way to maximize and conserve our nations natural resources."

Additionally, there was another link on your link dated June 10 that was relevant to this issue and interesting.

http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/states-challenge-attempted-federal-pow...

Keep in mind, I'm weighing in your info as biased toward industry. But I'll sort it out and balance it.

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 12, 2009 at 14:37

Now, looking at what Braveheart provided, I find this ...

"The EPA concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids poses little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water."

I took that to mean the injection of the fluids in the process of frac'ing, not in the process of disposal. But I could be wrong (and confused, yet again) because the pending repeal is written "pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations..."

So, is disposal considered part of the frac operations? Or is it a distinctly separate operation?

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 3:33

Thanks for those additional links. :0)

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 12, 2009 at 16:35

So, there are initial findings out there somewhere, don't know where or what they say?

Okay, got this from ACS...

"About ACS PublicationsACS is the leading publisher of peer-reviewed research in the chemical and related sciences, serving scientific communities worldwide through a commitment to quality, reliability, and innovation. "

I'll have to look for the info you reference as it wasn't a direct link to it. For now, for the sake of argument, we'll say it's there, it's valid & reliable.

I think we all know about the ingredients in the cocktail. Realistically, those of us who cook know it's not the ingredients alone that matter, it's the combination of ingredients, the ratio, and how the ingredients are processed that can make a recipe a winner or a killer. LOL

Questions that remain:

1. Can anyone contribute recently documented instances of contamination of water from development in fields at similar depths and formations as the HS. The only thing we have to go on for now is 5 yrs. old and relates to coalbed methane.

2. Since this issue is influenced by a multitude of variables (different formations, different depths, kinds of gas, etc.), should the exemption remain in place to allow the states to deal with their own variables? Or should the exemption be repealed, allowing for a federal "blanket" code to take effect?

Some of us work under "blanket" federal policies such as this so there is a preconceived POV, a prejudice in this matter. Some of us may wonder whether the state will put enough teeth into regulations as development to these depths in our state is in its infancy.

I'll close this again for now. Think on it. I'll open it back up in the morning and we'll see what happens.

Surely there are others out there that have questions. Speak up, I've only torn my pants twice & haven't gotten any scratches yet ... ouch ... I've only been scratched once sitting on the barbed wire.

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 2:47

Reopen for business ... if anyone is interested. lol

I've added some docs/links again at the top of the discussion. Also, as noted, ShaleGeo has now posted the Shale Primer on the front page that jffree mentioned. I urge you to look at all those recently added links if you're still undecided as to whether the exemption should be repealed.

As for me, I'm done, read plenty, weighed the info & the potential bias, and I've voted in the poll. I leave you to make up your own minds now. Just remember the disclaimer at the bottom of the page regarding opinions. Then, give it a shot & vote in Keith's poll.

(PS - I'm done discussing, but I'm not leaving. Since I posted this topic, I feel responsible for it. For anyone contributing further, I ask that this remain civil & relevant. If not, I have the power button, I'll just shut it down, and I'll leave a message that I did so. Moderators also have my full support if they feel the need to close the discussion.)

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 3:17

Thanks, again. I noted that fact (federal responsibility = oversight) reading through the info. Which is one of the reasons I repeatedly closed down the discussion ... time to read, let the info sink in, think how it applies, how it would apply as technology changes.

One thing I noted, there are more variables involved than just a given play. There are also a multitude of variables within a given field. I gained an understanding of why N. Caddo may be having difficulty while other areas seem to be drilling with no problem.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 13, 2009 at 3:13

Sesport, I voted. I know it's a controversial subject... but I think if service companies were forced to comply with MSDS rules it would be a bit easier to come to a consensus. It is the very fact that they hide so much that makes the issue so explosive.

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 3:27

I know compliance with MSDS is the sticking point on these environmental/health & safety issues. Which is why I was looking at the information specific to the frac process and not disposal.

The issue most certainly is explosive, probably in part (at least) because it's so confusing.

Thanks for the input - :0)

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 13, 2009 at 3:48

You had to go there?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page