Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on February 27, 2012 at 15:43

1. it seems to be a fair representation of the truth

2. i read it

3. probably not

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/mixed-verdict-on-frac...

"The team did not see a need for new regulations specific to fracking, but for better enforcement of existing regulations of drilling in general"

huh.  deja vu.

Permalink Reply by essay on February 26, 2012 at 10:04

haha so peer review by the o&g industry is a joke as compared to what, peer review in academia?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on February 26, 2012 at 1:10

hfb,

Are you a new poster? If so then WELCOME!  You have come to the right place for info about the Haynesville Shale and shale energy.  I agree that the science is not yet settled on fracking and it may well be that fracking is inappropriate for some areas because of geological factors.

However, I can tell you that there are hundreds of creative people working their butts off to make new/safer ways of extracting shale energy.  I think they are going to be successful partly because people like you demand that shale energy be as safe as possible.

About peer review ... you should read some of my old posts about peer reviews and insiders! Seriously, while it's quite flawed its the best way we have to cross check the data.   Our members on GHS have SHREDDED reports from both industry and academic think tanks. The beauty of the Internet is that these things can't be kept secret as well as they could be in the past.  I think it's fair to say that flaws have been found in both groups - and also flaws in both pro and anti shale papers.  I am just glad that more people are reading these obscure, hard to understand but very important reports.

Again, welcome to GHS if you are new.  I chose my screenname because it reflects how I feel about shale. I am "hopeful" about natural gas as a way to boost our economy of the future - worldwide.

"until the Industry can guarantee NO pollution we must stop the process by laws that protect the protect our water wells first and serve the Gas industry last. Water pollution is going on all over the country.:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on February 26, 2012 at 22:15

Thanks for your kudos for my kudos! I appreciate you posting counter arguments and links to other sources than just from within the industry. That takes guts and good research skills.  Please keep the links coming!

.

The letter from the Democrats to Salazar has a lot of daming accusations and I want to see how he answers them.  I'm also glad to have the info about better casing technology as that seems to be a main source for problems - and surface spills - the Oops Factor.

.

The main UT website summarizes it's findings. I copied them below. Overall, it's very good news - but also brings up concerns.  Like you I will be waiting for the peer review - we saw how that turned things around for the Cornell study.  You've read enough of my posts to know that I do not trust ANYONE's peer review process - industry, govt, academic or advocacy groups.  Everyone stretches the truth to fit their personal bias (or paycheck)  But, it's the best system we have and by each side reviewing the others work maybe the elusive best practices can be learned and good policies made.

.

UT Key Findings:

• Researchers found no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth.
• Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
• Methane found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely be traced to natural sources, and likely was present before the onset of shale gas operations.
• Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from hydraulic fracturing itself.
• Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid releases during construction or operation — are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 27, 2012 at 16:40

Had an interesting thought today:

Certain herbicides and pesticides used at one time in growing corn and wheat can cause cancer, and contaminate groundwater.  Fertilizer and sediment from fields can contaminate surface water, and all of the above except sediment contaminate groundwater.  

Grain elevators can explode, and certain pathogens can infect the crop.  Widespread availability of low cost food has made for a fat population, and obesity kills people.  

Hopefully common sense will prevail long term on regulation of hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on February 27, 2012 at 20:58

Interesting dbob - but how many years did it take for the consensus to form?  I am 60 and I seem to recall it's taken decades.  I hope "common sense" will prevail in the long term - but remember that it took decades to sort the science out on these issues.

.

I'm over 60 and from the generation they used to allow run behind "fog trucks" spraying DDT. I recall my mother asking our doctor when I was a kid if it was safe and he said "sure" (I swear he said it with a cigarette in his mouth)  It can take a long time for scientific consensus to come down the pike.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on February 28, 2012 at 0:45

ddt is great to bring up if you're trying to point out that the consensus is often not very scientific.  the eerie similarity of more recent attempts to demonize hydrofracking through the spread of misinformation and fear are surely just coincidental.

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now...

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/SA_Readers_Digest_...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on February 28, 2012 at 0:49

we already have the oracle of omaha, leave those poor fume sniffing prophets in the past where they belong.  besides, can you imagine the epa permitting process you'd have to go through?  wouldn't be worth it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 28, 2012 at 3:12

Generally speaking, DDT is great for people, just bad for birds, and really persistent in the food chain. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on February 28, 2012 at 4:27

the bird thing has been debunked many times over, and if persistence in soil was really a problem why were there not widespread impacts among exposed populations, human or otherwise?

some of this info is redundant but each link contains interesting information.  there are some pretty cold blooded motives outlined in that second link... remember how i mentioned earlier in the thread how some folks, usually environmentalist/neomalthusian types, believe there's just too darn many people?  this is one of the methods of population control they either don't want to talk about or of which they are just plain ignorant.  the third link has direct rebuttal of the book which helped kick off this madness.

http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-...

http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/ddt.htm

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

here is a very pro silent spring article, included here because i feel it is both amusing, informative, and at least mildly disturbing all at once.  i wonder, is it possible to pull off something similar in the information age, perhaps something even more grand and sweeping in its implications?  one thing i can tell you, if they fail, it sure as hell won't be for lack of trying.

http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/bakerr/v600/rachel_carson_and_sil...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page