# To frack, or not to frack?.....that is the question (with POLL)



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

Fracking in UK given go-ahead as Lancashire council rejection overturned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-37567866


 I am in two minds over this major environmental issue and would be interested to hear the thoughts and opinions of other members, especially those with 1st hand knowledge and experience of living near a frack site.

*Fracking* is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.







*Hydraulic fracturing by country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_country*


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 6, 2016)

voted undecided
while we need the Energy we have to be concerned for the Environment and Rescorce management
I'm Pro Nuclear for Power Generation and feel this is the way we should develop power generation
Oil and Gas Reserve's ( now Limited ) should be used by the Very Important Chemical Industry
That's as far as i am concerned is a more important use now for these Finite Resorces
Nuclear Power can replace Coal/Gas/ Oil Generated power but cannot Replace Petro chemical rescorces


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

They are doing this in the North of my country as well, 
people there aren't happy there since it causes vibrations/small earthquakes in that area and people's homes are getting damaged.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

Undecided. It hasn't been proven yet, that I know of, this is causing mini quakes ( though let's be real, it's not a leap).


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

*Consequences earthquakes Groningen (The Netherlands) similar to heavy earthquakes Southern Europe.*

"_(Earth Matters | Herman Damveld) The effects of severe earthquakes in Groningen are of the same order as the effects of major natural quakes in Italy, Greece and Turkey.That seems at first sight strange because we earthquakes in those countries have images of destroyed villages. It also tells us that earthquakes are much more powerful than those in Groningen. That is correct, but the effects are similar. The information provided by the Government is incomplete and thus creates a false perception. That is one of the topics discussed in the report basic insight natural gas and earthquakes._

_Richter scale is not decisive, but the ground acceleration 
The strength of earthquakes is usually represented by the Richter scale. This scale has been passes by means of a number, the strength of the earthquake. This is the strength and not the consequences of the earthquake. In southern Europe come to earthquakes with a magnitude of 6 on the Richter scale. In Groningen keep most of the earthquakes under 3 on this scale. However, an earthquake of 6 is a thousand times stronger than a tremor of 3. Therefore it seems that it is not too bad in Groningen._

_Earthquakes below Groningen usually occur at about three kilometers deep, because the gas field lies. Elsewhere in the world occur earthquakes much deeper, in the order of 10 to 20 kilometers.Although earthquakes are often stronger on the Richter scale, but the earthquake energy has to travel a much greater distance from the earth's surface. This difference explains in depth, together with the soil, why the quakes in Groningen which are often less powerful than elsewhere, still be felt significantly and cause damage. The damage is not so much determined by the force of the quake, but more by the shaking of the ground during an earthquake.Slack Groninger soil ensures the strengthening of the vibrations from deep underground. This is called the ground acceleration. This is the most important measure of the damage and not the Richter scale, also find the NAM. In information about the earthquakes in Groningen however KNMI indicates the ground acceleration not just the effect on the Richter scale. Therefore this information is incomplete and there is a false perception._

_Damaging earthquakes 
There are data on the ground acceleration during earthquakes abroad. In a ground acceleration that we can expect in Groningen, were abroad a few dozen to 90,000 deaths. That was not so much by the earthquake itself, but because people were buried under collapsing houses and buildings. According to the Safety of Groningen, the collaboration of emergency services, are at the expected ground acceleration "of the effects of the earthquakes in Groningen of the same order as the effects of major natural quakes in Italy, Greece and Turkey."_

_The gas produced in Groningen from 1990 until early March 2015 as many as 862 earthquakes. From mid-2012 until the beginning of March. There are 35,500 damage reports were received, of which 29,000 have been accepted by the NAM. Usually, this includes cracks in walls. However, greater damage is possible.State Supervision of Mines has calculated in 2013 may fall dead in a severe earthquake in 1200 and 118 houses to collapse._

_Money comes first 
We know no Dutch industry that annually may cause with the consent of the Government damage to thousands of homes. At the same time the government gets daily 25 million to natural gas by the gas. From 1963 to last year's natural gas revenues for the government were 277 billion. The benefit was for the Netherlands, the downside for Groningen._

_Bubble 15 years empty 
If we continue the extraction of natural gas on the old base, the Dutch gas over 15 years. Now there is only a quarter of the gas supply which initially was in the ground. Furthermore, more and more pumps are required to extract the gas from the soil. These pumps operate on electricity. They use gas production annually as much electricity as 200,000 households. The vulnerability of the Dutch gas supply increases._"

https://translate.google.com/transl...groningen-zuid-europa.html&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

Sorry.. anything proven or are we relying on correlation for causation?


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

*Also:

Wastewater shale practically insoluble problem*
The extraction of shale gas creates huge amounts of chemically contaminated wastewater, full of fracking chemicals, heavy metals and even radioactive elements like barium and strontium. This poses a major threat to drinking water reservoirs, and for example agriculture.

Unfortunately, there actually is no solution to the problem. This is also because of the enormous scale of toxic waste is produced in fracking for shale gas. It involves hundreds of millions of gallons per individual frack, while there are hundreds per schaliegasvoorkomen bores gefrackt each multiple times "should" be.

In the US wastewater treatment plants already announced the schaliegasindustrie not waiting for this waste, which they received in just over discharges in Pennsylvania until 2011.

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have then examined samples from three different treatment plants, both from the time this shale wastewater received and thereafter. The Americans found that the official 'purified water' containing the ban on sewage discharges significantly higher concentrations of various toxins, and conclude that normal treatment plants not be able to clean the wastewater from shale gas chemical.

*A stream tankers*
In the US, as in the Netherlands, however, there is no infrastructure to accommodate middle of rural area contaminated water. It requires either transporting large quantities of tanks, and their diesel emissions, risk of accidents - or untreated discharges ...

*Or injections of waste water into the soil*
Instead of purification, a portion of the waste water in the US simply injected back into the soil. However, these so-called waste water disposal wells create a sizable printing and (toxic) groundwater flow trigger, which also able to ensure that existing fractures move in the soil. In the US, earthquakes up to strength 5.7 on the Richter Scale perceived by the back pumping of wastewater after the extraction of shale gas.

https://milieudefensie.nl/schaliegas/fracking/afvalwater-schaliegas-praktisch-onoplosbaar-probleem


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Sorry.. anything proven or are we relying on correlation for causation?



It's in the news all the time in my country, about damaged homes and buildings.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 6, 2016)

Undecided.  The energy need  is real.  The question is whether it is needed in my (or your) backyard.  Where I live, they wanted to set up fracking drilling within miles of home.  It took over a year, but our residents, in a state that depends in large measure on oil revenue, successfully fought it.

The concern was we get our drinking water, which is about as pure as you can get, from the water table.  There was no clear answer on how cracking the rock below the water table would not cause oil and gas to seep into the water table, or even worse, cause it to seep away.


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 6, 2016)

Fracking has contaminated the groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming. We should actively be moving away from the use of fossil fuels, you have to be braindead to think otherwise, without even mentioning the undemocratic nature of the decision in Lancashire, where central government has basically dismissed the will of local people. Welcome to Brexit Britain, just don't get thirsty as you pass through...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> It's in the news all the time in my country, about damaged homes and buildings.


What does that prove?

Do you understand what correlation is not causation means? I ask the question not to be a jerk, but because of the continuing correlative support you are giving.

As I said, it's not a leap, but I personally haven't read any official studies proving it. Perhaps they are out there, but I haven't come across them.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

In case you're able to read Dutch:

Here's a nice PDF:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...bFfgJBfjsv5Lvai5w&sig2=pQGomZ9VLlI59_QDhnbWiw

https://www.google.nl/search?q=stud...ome..69i57.16769j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

I don't read Dutch. How about some cliff's notes...

CAPS - Do you read Dutch, get that translated, or just thanking blindly???


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

@Vayra86 might be able to tell you more about it when he's back online.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

I thank contributions which add to the debate

Im in Burger king at the moment and will read it when im back on my pc.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I don't read Dutch. How about some cliff's notes...
> 
> CAPS - Do you read Dutch, get that translated, or just thanking blindly???


google translate does a reasonable job
as does some FF plug in's


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

I dont FF.

I also don't like a list of articles to read. If there is scientific evidence, post "A" link. Make it easy on the reader to understand your point. 2 correlative posts does not make me want to follow a trail of links. 

This happens in my home state, so I have read plenty about it from both sides... as I said, just never saw anything scientifically conclusive in my readings.


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I dont FF.
> 
> I also don't like a list of articles to read. If there is scientific evidence, post "A" link. Make it easy on the reader to understand your point. 2 correlative posts does not make me want to follow a trail of links.
> 
> This happens in my home state, so I have read plenty about it from both sides... as I said, just never saw anything scientifically conclusive in my readings.



https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/pub...nd-domestic-wells-production-well-stimulation

"Our investigation highlights several important issues related to impact to groundwater from unconventional oil and gas extraction. We have, for the ﬁrst time, demonstrated impact to USDWs as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Given the high frequency of injection of stimulation ﬂuids into USDWs to support CBM extraction and unknown frequency in tight gas formations, it is unlikely that impact to USDWs is limited to the Pavillion Field requiring investigation elsewhere. Second, well stimulation in the Pavillion Field occurred many times less than 500 m from ground surface and, in some cases, at or very close to depths of deepest domestic groundwater use in the area. Shallow hydraulic fracturing poses greater risks than deeper fracturing does, especially in the presence of well integrity issues as documented here in the Pavillion Field. Additional investigations elsewhere are needed. Finally, while disposal of production ﬂuids in unlined pits is a legacy issue in Wyoming, this practice has nevertheless caused enduring groundwater contamination in the Pavillion Field. Impact to groundwater from unlined pits is unlikely to have occurred only in the Pavillion Field, necessitating investigation elsewhere. "


----------



## Devon68 (Oct 6, 2016)

I watched the simpsons I voted NO.


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 6, 2016)




----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr McC said:


> https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/pub...nd-domestic-wells-production-well-stimulation
> 
> "Our investigation highlights several important issues related to impact to groundwater from unconventional oil and gas extraction. We have, for the ﬁrst time, demonstrated impact to USDWs as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Given the high frequency of injection of stimulation ﬂuids into USDWs to support CBM extraction and unknown frequency in tight gas formations, it is unlikely that impact to USDWs is limited to the Pavillion Field requiring investigation elsewhere. Second, well stimulation in the Pavillion Field occurred many times less than 500 m from ground surface and, in some cases, at or very close to depths of deepest domestic groundwater use in the area. Shallow hydraulic fracturing poses greater risks than deeper fracturing does, especially in the presence of well integrity issues as documented here in the Pavillion Field. Additional investigations elsewhere are needed. Finally, while disposal of production ﬂuids in unlined pits is a legacy issue in Wyoming, this practice has nevertheless caused enduring groundwater contamination in the Pavillion Field. Impact to groundwater from unlined pits is unlikely to have occurred only in the Pavillion Field, necessitating investigation elsewhere. "


Good info!

The talking point however was in regards to it causing tremors/earthauakes (post 5/6).


----------



## m1dg3t (Oct 6, 2016)

Q:When you can put a match to your water tap and get flame thrower?

A:What is fracking?

If you can/haven't, watch 'Gasland' 1& 2


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

How fracking caused earthquakes in the UK

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/


----------



## broken pixel (Oct 6, 2016)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

The EPA gets paid off among others to falsify data or piddle paddle studies.
A few years ago Yale & Duke Universities did a study by collecting an entire 64 groundwater samples from various places to determine hydraulic fracturing is safe. Yay! Thanks for that in depth study & the mass amount of samples collected. $$$$$$


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 6, 2016)

If we don't frack it, the Aliens will.

PS:  If I have to be serious, I'm going to say I have no idea.  It's honest.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 6, 2016)

The goal is to move away from fossil fuels; fracking is a step away from that goal.

Unlike oil wells, there's a lot of unintended consequences of fracking including artificial earthquakes and water contamination.  Additionally, the grade of shale oil is inferior to oil from wells which requires a chemical treatment (I believe involves massive amounts of sulfur) to bring it up to refinery speed.  And I forgot to mention it is about 5-6 times more expensive to produce than oil from wells.

Fracking is a sign of desperation, not optimism and prosperity.


----------



## broken pixel (Oct 6, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> If we don't frack it, the Aliens will.
> 
> PS:  If I have to be serious, I'm going to say I have no idea.  It's honest.



I'm sure an Alien race does not have any use for fossil Fuels.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 6, 2016)

wanna see the effects of long term fracking?  just look at Oklahoma.

for context: Oklahoma averaged 3 earthquakes per year prior to 2008.


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#{"autoUpdate":[],"basemap":"grayscale","feed":"1475784047411","listFormat":"default","mapposition":[[17.22475820662464,-139.482421875],[55.429013452407396,-55.107421875]],"overlays":["plates"],"restrictListToMap":["restrictListToMap"],"search":{"id":"1475784047411","name":"Search Results","isSearch":true,"params":{"starttime":"2016-09-06 00:00:00","endtime":"2016-10-06 23:59:59","maxlatitude":50,"minlatitude":24.6,"maxlongitude":-65,"minlongitude":-125,"minmagnitude":2.5,"orderby":"time"}},"sort":"newest","timezone":"utc","viewModes":["list","map"],"event":null}


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 6, 2016)

broken pixel said:


> I'm sure an Alien race does not have any use for fossil Fuels.



I'm not sure we know anything about an alien race, frankly.  The word "alien" comes to mind.  How do you know they don't find crude oil incredibly delicious?

My comment was not meant to be taken seriously however.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> How fracking caused earthquakes in the UK
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/


theory, not conclusive. Same things I saw out here.

"The two geologists who wrote the report ran detailed models to show that the fracking could – and _most likely_ did – provoke the quakes."


----------



## slozomby (Oct 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> theory, not conclusive. Same things I saw out here.
> 
> "The two geologists who wrote the report ran detailed models to show that the fracking could – and _most likely_ did – provoke the quakes."



we're having earthquakes in previously geologically stable areas. what is consistent about those areas. fracking was introduced.

its the same thing with climate change. there will never be conclusive proof. because its impossible to rule out all other causes 100%. heck theres a .00000....000001% chance that its an alien death ray pointed at our planet. and we can never disprove that. all we can say is we don't detect the alien death ray.

maybe the massive spike in earthquakes in Oklahoma is the alien death ray hitting there. that would explain the 30000% increase in earthquakes since 2008.


below is a wonderful overlay of earthquakes to waste water disposal sites.
http://earthquakes.ok.gov/what-we-know/earthquake-map/


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 6, 2016)

I live in Oklahoma atm, and I can tell you that before I moved here 1.5 years ago I had lots of people say they never experience a earthquake. Now everyone I know seems to have experience several, I just experience one myself for the first time some weeks ago. 
There is lots of reports of damaged houses, apartments buildings etc. My apartment has a crack in the right in the kitchen.  The Governor even banned all cities, counties, from banning fracking. I was thinking of buying some apartment in Oklahoma but I think I wont be doing that if most have damage.


----------



## erocker (Oct 6, 2016)

Fracking is great!



...if you're making money off of it. Otherwise it's a waste to the land it's ruining and most creatures (humans included) that live on that land. There are far better way to get/make energy. It's just greed and ignorance.


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 6, 2016)

Fracking is great when you are Gov. Mary Fallin and work for the oil companies even though you should be working for the people that elected her in office. I dont care, I wont be living here much longer. I am taking my ebay business elsewhere.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 6, 2016)

Still no definitive proof that fracking is causing tremors in Oklahoma.

I'm not pro-fracking, but people should also be taking into account what slippage of the New Madrid Fault can do.  I've seen nothing to count it out. Oklahoma is well within the seismic area.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Still no definitive proof that fracking is causing tremors in Oklahoma.
> 
> I'm not pro-fracking, but people should also be taking into account what slippage of the New Madrid Fault can do.  I've seen nothing to count it out. Oklahoma is well within the seismic area.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone



again there is no way to have definitive proof. its not like you can set this up in a lab and have a repeatable experiment.

also if it were slippage there would also be earthquakes outside of the waste water disposal wells area.  that it's highly localized to just those areas would point to the activity rather than just the fault is slipping.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Still no definitive proof that fracking is causing tremors in Oklahoma.
> 
> I'm not pro-fracking, but people should also be taking into account what slippage of the New Madrid Fault can do.  I've seen nothing to count it out. Oklahoma is well within the seismic area.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone


Except that New Madrid is FAR to the east of Oklahoma (the whole width of Arkansas).  Oklahoma is not on a fault line of any kind.  I doubt even a strong tremor in New Madrid (and realize that New Madrid tremors are relatively weak) would even reach Oklahoma.



slozomby said:


> wanna see the effects of long term fracking?  just look at Oklahoma.
> 
> for context: Oklahoma averaged 3 earthquakes per year prior to 2008.
> 
> ...


That's a great link, look at it @rtwjunkie.  I see one tremor at New Madrid weighing in at 3.4.  Central Oklahoma is packed full of ~2 earthquakes.  Not only that, real earthquakes are often ~10km below the surface.  Fracking earthquakes are ~5km.

Compare the USGS data to this:






It's possible that only Oklahoma's foundation is susceptible to earthquakes caused by fracking.  I think it's pretty undeniable there's a connection...at least in Oklahoma.  If fracking spreads into Kansas, the quakes are likely to follow.

Half of the earthquakes USGS registered in the last month occurred in Oklahoma.


This article sums it up well:
https://watchers.news/2012/04/18/th...uakes-across-us-is-almost-certainly-man-made/


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Still no definitive proof that fracking is causing tremors in Oklahoma.
> 
> I'm not pro-fracking, but people should also be taking into account what slippage of the New Madrid Fault can do.  I've seen nothing to count it out. Oklahoma is well within the seismic area.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone


The USGS have said that fracking is causing small earthquakes without this state and parts of Kansas and Texas. But the most damage is being done to Oklahoma. The governor of Oklahoma even said that that is direct evince between the increase in earthquakes and fracking or waste water disposal.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...urvey-confirms-it-fracking-causes-earthquakes

Governor saying there is direct evidence
http://newsok.com/article/5438173

Honestly I dont think her "counsel" will do anything. The entire counsel is made up of people that work in the oil industry.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2015/aug15.html

to be more clear:

the current theory is not that fracking causes earthquakes. it is the waste water disposal that causes them.

the dangers of fracking itself is the pollution of the water table and generation of hazardous materials as a byproduct of the process.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that New Madrid is FAR to the east of Oklahoma (the whole width of Arkansas). Oklahoma is not on a fault line of any kind



Did you bother to read the link?  Have you done any more studying on the New Madrid? If you had, you'd realize how ludicrous your statement I quoted is.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Did you bother to read the link?  Have you done any more studying on the New Madrid? If you had, you'd realize how ludicrous your statement I quoted is.



yeah its the part marked by the black arrow. how does it pertain to the middle of Oklahoma.
notice the legend that says nontectonic earthquakes




heck even fox news doesn't blame Oklahoma's earthquakes on new madrid.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2016)

slozomby said:


> yeah its the part marked by the black arrow. how does it pertain to the middle of Oklahoma.
> notice the legend that says nontectonic earthquakes



Nobody is blaming anything on New Madrid.  Learned people are merely open to other factors as contributors until they have been ruled out.  Your use of the arrow shows that you are one of those that does not truly accept any possibility other than that which you have already decided upon.  

It's much more than a black arrow. If you'd bother to research it at all, it's affected area extends well into Oklahoma.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Nobody is blaming anything on New Madrid.  Learned people are merely open to other factors as contributors until they have been ruled out.  Your use of the arrow shows that you are one of those that does not truly accept any possibility other than that which you have already decided upon.
> 
> It's much more than a black arrow. If you'd bother to research it at all, it's affected area extends well into Oklahoma.



slippage from new madrid:


rtwjunkie said:


> but people should also be taking into account what slippage of the New Madrid Fault can do.  I've seen nothing to count it out. Oklahoma is well within the seismic area.



edit: according to the usgs the new madrid seismic zone does not include Oklahoma. however the effects of the 1812 earthquake could be recorded there.

if it were indeed slippage from new madrid why is it localized in the area with the densest concentration of waste water disposal wells.  that there aren't a string of earthquakes between the central Oklahoma area and the center (or even edges) of the new madrid zone would indicate that its not new madrid as the primary cause but something localized in the affected area. but you are right we cant completely rule out new madrid or san andreas or alien death rays. heck the escalation of the earthquakes started in 2009, so we cant rule out Obama as the cause either.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2016)

slozomby said:


> but you are right we cant completely rule out new madrid or san andreas or alien death rays. heck the escalation of the earthquakes started in 2009, so we cant rule out Obama as the cause either.



Do you even know how to debate and properly argue a point?  This right here shows you are far from learned, so I shan't waste any further time on you.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Do you even know how to debate and properly argue a point?  This right here shows you are far from learned, so I shan't waste any further time on you.


so you have ruled out Obama as the cause. Can you link some definitive proof?

I've linked to a USGS seismologist calling them human induced earthquakes.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 7, 2016)

Cool your jets guys or I'll have to get out my boxing gloves.


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 7, 2016)

I'd prefer them to develop solar and wind energy to a greater extent. 

Fracking is probably screwing up the environment. But I don't have any proof of that.
I just feel that injecting chemicals into the ground at high pressures is probably not a good idea.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 7, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Cool your jets guys or I'll have to get out my boxing gloves.


ok. I guess asking for someone to defend their position rather than just restating it is pushing too hard. my bad. have a good day.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 7, 2016)

slozomby said:


> ok. I guess asking for someone to defend their position rather than just restating it is pushing too hard. my bad. have a good day.



I just don't like conflict of any kind.  It makes me punch people.

Seriously it's just a reminder to everyone to take a step back.  We all need that sometimes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I just don't like conflict of any kind.  It makes me punch people.


So hypocritical. 


@rtwjunkie: In the last month, New Madrid had one minor quake.  Oklahoma and Kansas?  129!  That's 4 per day!  I counted three at 3.9 on the Richter scale where New Madrid's was 3.4.  So not only are there a lot more of them, some of them are also stronger.





If you read that Watcher link, you'd see that the number of earthquakes exceeding 3.0 has been increasing year over year with a sharp incline starting in 2009.  That's not natural unless it's next to a volcano.  Last I checked, no volcanoes in Oklahoma.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Oct 7, 2016)

Responsible fracking is highly situational.
Many factors need to be considered to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks.
In many cases it is probably safe.  In others it is demonstrably unsafe.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2016)

To chime in on this.

http://www.ninefornews.nl/winning-van-schaliegas-veroorzaakte-aardbevingen/

The TL: DR of that article is this:
- Fracking is currently not happening yet in our country, but it has been proved that normal gas exploitation has caused earthquakes in the province and this problem was long ignored or set aside for economical reasons.
- Fracking is being planned in several regions, options are being researched @ Boxtel & Noordoostpolder

Note this article is from jan 2015 so the current situation could well have moved on and we could be doing it right now, haven't gotten into that atm.

The earthquakes we have in our country are NOT due to fracking, but due to drilling and exploiting a normal gas pocket under the surface. That gas reserve is now nearly dry, but its a different beast.

Regardless, common sense applies here: if you change the structure below the surface and it is not 1:1 the same density and resistance, of course you will have moving pieces of earth as weight and gravity are applied. There is no doubt in my mind that fracking will have this effect, just like normal gas/oil drilling does.

https://milieudefensie.nl/schaliegas/fracking/milieuproblemen-schaliegas-op-een-rij

This is a site that shows a study discussing all the issues surrounding fracking.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 7, 2016)

*GRONINGEN CALLS ON FURTHER GAS CUTS TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKES
*
The province of Groningen, municipalities affected by fracking earthquakes, water boards and the local safety office are all calling on the Dutch government to reduce gas extraction in the province even further to prevent more earthquakes.

The involved parties feel that Economic Minister Henk Kamp’s recent decision to cap gas extraction in the province to 24 billion cubic meters per ear for the next five year, is not going far enough, GIC reports.

The Groningers submitted their opinion on the matter stating that there is still to many unknowns and that too little attention is paid to safety, prevention of damage psychological effects the earthquakes have on residents and their impact on the economy and quality of life.

They also want the directorship for the province to be more in the hands of the National Coordinator for Groningen. According to them, NAM and CVW still have too many fingers in the pie when it comes to new construction, earthquake proofing buildings and resolving damage clams.

The Groningers had until  August 11th to submit this opinion. Minister Kamp has to take it into account when making a final decision on gas extraction in the province. This decision is expected on October 1st.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/08/09/groningen-calls-gas-cuts-prevent-earthquakes/


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> *GRONINGEN CALLS ON FURTHER GAS CUTS TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKES
> *
> The province of Groningen, municipalities affected by fracking earthquakes, water boards and the local safety office are all calling on the Dutch government to reduce gas extraction in the province even further to prevent more earthquakes.
> 
> ...



I'm having my doubts on the legitimacy of that source. It's just somebody's blog it seems. Hardly trustworthy, especially because it also uses 'fracking' as the main reason for earthquakes, while the entire dispute with the Dutch government is due to regular gas exploitation. Of course, this leaves very little doubt as to the effects of Fracking as a consequence, but OK.

*edit: well not somebody's blog, but a site ran by nobodies anyway



P4-630 said:


> In case you're able to read Dutch:
> 
> Here's a nice PDF:
> https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...bFfgJBfjsv5Lvai5w&sig2=pQGomZ9VLlI59_QDhnbWiw
> ...



That PDF discusses the earthquakes as a result of regular gas exploitation from the pocket underneath Groningen. Not from fracking.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 7, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> - Fracking is currently not happening yet in our country,




"*Fracking: more natural gas by liquid injection*
NAM has used the fracking technique seven times between 2012 and 2014 to increase gas production on existing sites or launch. The technique was used in Blija, Kollumerpomp, Kiel-Windeweer, Lauwerzijl crab Buren, Warfstermolen and again in Kollumerpomp. Thanks to fracking gas production from these fields has greatly improved. additional gas is now won is different in the subsoil would remain, so we make the most of the Dutch mineral resources."

http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html

Anyways, @Vayra86  I thought the damaged homes in Groningen was caused by fracking.

Schaliegas heeft toch te maken met "fracking"?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> "*Fracking: more natural gas by liquid injection*
> NAM has used the fracking technique seven times between 2012 and 2014 to increase gas production on existing sites or launch. The technique was used in Blija, Kollumerpomp, Kiel-Windeweer, Lauwerzijl crab Buren, Warfstermolen and again in Kollumerpomp. Thanks to fracking gas production from these fields has greatly improved. additional gas is now won is different in the subsoil would remain, so we make the most of the Dutch mineral resources."
> 
> http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html
> ...



Ah! Yes, Schaliegas = fracking. I didn't know they had already done this, but as you can see it has been done in a limited way, only 7 times over 2 years. The majority of the gas exploitation in the past (and still) happened with regular drilling. The issues with earthquakes have been far older than 2012, but I think it's safe to say fracking hasn't helped.


----------



## jsfitz54 (Oct 7, 2016)

Once you poison the well.....


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 7, 2016)

Fracking can be good IF it is done properly.  Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/


----------



## broken pixel (Oct 7, 2016)

nolafotoknut said:


> Fracking can be good IF it is done properly.  Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.
> 
> http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/



They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 8, 2016)

broken pixel said:


> They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.



You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.?  There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers.  It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2016)

nolafotoknut said:


> Fracking can be good IF it is done properly.  Here is a link to a study conducted by Harvard.
> 
> http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/06/harvard-study-fracking-is-safe-profitable-good-for-environment/


It's not good.  The only purpose in extracting it is to set it on fire: 4 hydrogen, 1 carbon.  Less carbon than oil products but still carbon.  Using natural gas is a lot like the US POTUS election: the lesser of evils.  Good is no evils.



rtwjunkie said:


> You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.?  There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers.  It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.


Oil producers are hugely promoting natural gas right now because they _want_ it to replace oil.  The more natural gas used, the less demand for wind/solar.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oil produces are hugely promoting natural gas right now because they _want_ it to replace oil. The more natural gas used, the less demand for wind/solar.



And I repeat, you don't know Yale and Harvard.  If you aren't from the Northeast you cannot comprehend the depth of their liberal thinking.  They would rather crumble into the Earth in dust than give in to fossil-fuel. For this reason, I am willing to attach some credibility to a pro-fracking study.  

For the record, I am not pro-fracking.  I don't like what it appears to do to water quality.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 8, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> You DO know Yale and Harvard are the biggest nest of liberal and anti-fossil fuel thinking in the U.S.?  There is zero chance they got bought out by oil producers.  It is the antithesis of their wind power, solar power, hug everybody for body heat in winter thinking.


manwhile yale graduated gw bush. so much for not being able to buy them


----------



## nolafotoknut (Oct 8, 2016)

broken pixel said:


> They collected about 60 water samples, come on. That was a payed for by you know who scientific study, Yale also did a bought and payed for a study also.


I hardly think that liberal Harvard or Yale were "paid" for a study.


----------



## broken pixel (Oct 8, 2016)

Marcellus Drilling News: 

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2016/06/yale-arrives-in-belmont-county-to-study-the-evils-of-fracking/


----------



## Beastie (Oct 8, 2016)

Tidal generators FTW!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> And I repeat, you don't know Yale and Harvard.  If you aren't from the Northeast you cannot comprehend the depth of their liberal thinking.  They would rather crumble into the Earth in dust than give in to fossil-fuel. For this reason, I am willing to attach some credibility to a pro-fracking study.
> 
> For the record, I am not pro-fracking.  I don't like what it appears to do to water quality.


marcellusdrilling.com -> Harvard Magazine -> Fracking’s Future by Michael Butler (professor of environmental studies) and Xi Lu (postdoctoral fellow in environmental and energy sciences)


> But even though natural gas is relatively “clean”—particularly relative to coal burned to generate electricity—the “fracking” process used to produce the new supplies poses significant environmental risks. We must ensure that procedures and policies are in place to minimize potential damage to local and regional air quality and to protect essential water resources. We need to make sure that extraction of the gas (consisting mainly of methane, with small amounts of other gases) from shale and its transport to market does not result in a significant increase in “fugitive” (inadvertent) emissions of methane (CH4)—which is 10 times more powerful as a climate-altering agent, molecule per molecule, than carbon dioxide (CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas). Further, we will need to recognize from the outset that cheap natural gas may delay the transition to truly carbon-free, sustainable solar- and wind-energy supplies that remain crucial in light of our worsening climate-change crisis.


...later...


> The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed steps to ensure responsible extraction of gas from shale. If these procedures are implemented, the IEA concluded that the increase in production costs should be relatively modest—7 percent or less—and that the integrity of the environment could be protected. The IEA conclusions appear overly optimistic in the U.S. context: the costs for design and implementation of sensible regulations for the domestic shale-gas industry are likely to be significantly greater—but still tolerable. The problems are neither technical nor economic, but essentially political.


...which is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of a lemon.

The article in general is packed with a liberal spin on things.  The overarching argument is that burning natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than burning coal and that is true.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 2, 2016)

Ex Greenpeace leader supports fracking ...... BBC video


A former Greenpeace leader said the green movement needs an "urgent rethink" over energy sources and claimed it was time to "frack on".

While opponents claim fracking would desecrate the countryside, pollute water supplies and produce thousands of tonnes of global warming gasses, Stephen Tindale disagrees.

In a personal film from Lancashire for the Daily Politics soapbox series, he said: "If we want to keep the lights on, and stop burning coal, it's time for green campaigners to stop saying 'frack off' and time to say 'frack on'."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37751012


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2016)

Somebody got paid off by big oil.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 2, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Somebody got paid off by big oil.



...we stopped ex Greenpeace leader driving his gold played new Bentley to get his views on tracking and human trafficking...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 2, 2016)

He probably drives a Prius....

Stephen Tindale is a Climate and Energy Consultant and an Associate Fellow at the Centre for European Reform. He was Environment Policy Adviser, Policy Director and, latterly, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK before leaving in 2006. He was also chair of the Greenpeace European Unit. Prior to that he was Special Adviser to Michael Meacher MP, Minister for the Environment (1997-2000), and was closely involved in the development of the UK's Climate Change Strategy, the Integrated Transport White Paper and the Government's green tax proposals.

Between 1996 and 1997 Stephen was Director of The Green Alliance (a small London-based think tank/environmental pressure group) and, before that, was a Senior Research Fellow on environment and energy at the Institute for Public Policy Research (1994-96). From 1992 to 1994 he was Environment Policy Adviser to the Labour Party and secretary of the Labour Party Policy Commission on the Environment, which produced ‘In Trust for Tomorrow’, the Party's 1994 environment policy statement. He spent four years in the Foreign Office (third secretary in Islamabad), was a lecturer in Environmental Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and worked with Friends of the Earth and the Fabian Society.




Tindale is noted for his recent U-turn on nuclear power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Tindale


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2016)

Well, he could be an environmentalist that believes the atmospheric carbon problem is catastrophic.  In which case, fracking and nuclear make sense.  The thing is, as the atmosphere continues to warm, keeping underground water reserves clean becomes increasingly important.  Fracking is a win in terms of atmosphere but a loss in terms of the crust.  Alternatives are needed.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 2, 2016)

At the same time..... Do we as Brits want to surrender ourselves to the chinese who are going to be building our nuclear powerplant? Youre almost handing the keys to the country to them in a sense. they can choose to disable our electricity by turning the plant off if they ever think we're worth invading.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2016)

China is a novice at building nuclear power plants.  France is probably the most knowledgeable on that subject right now.  Outsourcing design and construction to China is foolish.

If there's increase demand for new nuclear reactors, research into next generation reactors should take off again (e.g. fast breeder and bed reactors).


Edit: Here's the location you're talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_nuclear_power_station

The design was obtained from France by China in the 1990s and China made changes to increase it's power capacity and is selling that to UK.

They are a pressurized water reactor (PWR) design which is rare in the UK but common in USA and France.

I seriously think fast breeder and bed reactors are the future, not PWR.  PWR will get you power faster though because they're well understood.


----------



## 64K (Nov 2, 2016)

France really would be a good choice to design and build a nuclear reactor. They get about 75% of their electricity from 58 nuclear reactors though it's expected to decline in the future. They are the world's largest exporter of electricity due to it being so cheap to generate.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2016)

France is working on an "Evolutionary Pressurized Water" reactor but they're way over budget and way past projected deadline.  Two are being built in France and two in China.  Based on that, they're working on a new design that aims to be much cheaper to build.

Like I said though, PWR is literally a design that dates back to the very first reactors (1950s).  We know better designs exist that are incapable of melting down and capable of using a variety of metals.  PWR is really the best choice for now but there needs to be a big push for alternate reactor designs that can be deployed globally without concerns of meltdown or enrichment for weaponization.


Kind of going off topic here though.  The advantage/value of natural gas is that it can be used to power vehicles.  Nuclear can't (unless you're talking really big ships).  Change all of the grid over the nuclear and there's still a problem with moving people and goods around nations.

Sadly, natural gas is the best solution for that at the moment.  It's more energy dense than gasoline and gasoline engines can be modified to run off of it.  The problem is the safe extraction of it.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Nov 3, 2016)

I voted yes because my family make money from fracking. And I like money. We have 85 acres of land in Pennsylvania. It sits over a huge natural gas pocket and there are 2 pads placed where the fracking is done. I own 8 of those acres myself but I don't have a pad on mine. But the money goes to an estate and most of the estate owners get a check here and there. I don't get any of the money though until my Mom passes away so ultimately I hope to never make any money off this!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 3, 2016)

How many miles is it from the fracking site to your house?


----------



## scevism (Nov 3, 2016)

My view is we have fucked this planet up so much already. All comes down to greedy twats making money anyway possible.
Were there is money to be had, are dickhead world will suck it up........THE END....


----------



## WhiteNoise (Nov 4, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> How many miles is it from the fracking site to your house?



Over 3000 miles away. I was born and raised in PA but I live in California. The owners of the land are the children of my Grandfather who passed away a few years ago. He has 4 kids. Besides his kids I'm the only grandson that owns part of the land. Only one relative lives next door to that land and the rest of us live either 4 hours away in PA or in another state.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2016)

5.0 in earthquake most likely caused by fracking in Oklahoma.  Damage extensive:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/us/oklahoma-earthquake/index.html


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 7, 2016)

i read this earlier and couldnt quite believe it

_Prior 2009, Oklahoma had just two or three earthquakes a year of greater than 3.0 magnitude.

Last year it had 907._


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 7, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i read this earlier and couldnt quite believe it
> 
> _Prior 2009, Oklahoma had just two or three earthquakes a year of greater than 3.0 magnitude.
> 
> Last year it had 907._



hmmmm.. 20 in the last 7 days...

yeah... everything's just fine 







the sad thing is, that we're dumber than the stormtroopers.....



edit*** I do apologize, 8 of those listed on that site in the last 7 days were under 3.0. I meant simply to speak to earthquakes _total_, but it may have appeared that I was trying to say 20 3.0 earthquakes. Clarity for the win


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 7, 2016)

Perhaps @yotano211 will have more info when he gets online.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 7, 2016)

All of the info that i get is from the interwebs and from talking to people around the oil industry. I just felt 2 small earthquakes in the 2.5-3.3 range just last week. Oklahoma has many people that work or used to work in the oil industry. Even many old timers that have lived in Tulsa their entire lives. They say that they never felt so many earthquakes up until just a few years ago. I have only lived in Tulsa 16 months. 

I go on this website to check on earthquake stats.
http://www.newson6.com/category/225338/oklahoma-earthquakes

Wow I didnt know the one from yesterday was a 5.0, wow, I think the is the strongest one yet that I have felt.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 8, 2016)

yotano211 said:


> All of the info that i get is from the interwebs and from talking to people around the oil industry. I just felt 2 small earthquakes in the 2.5-3.3 range just last week. Oklahoma has many people that work or used to work in the oil industry. Even many old timers that have lived in Tulsa their entire lives. They say that they never felt so many earthquakes up until just a few years ago. I have only lived in Tulsa 16 months.
> 
> I go on this website to check on earthquake stats.
> http://www.newson6.com/category/225338/oklahoma-earthquakes
> ...


Check out the link I posted
http://newsok.com/earthquakes


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 8, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> Check out the link I posted
> http://newsok.com/earthquakes


It seems most of the quakes are right in the upper center of the state.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 21, 2016)

A new geological survey has revealed the biggest continuous oil field ever discovered in the America hidden under west Texas.

The Midland Basin, of the Wolfcamp Shale area in the Permian Basin, has an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil - worth up to $900 billion - and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas, according to the US Geological survey.

The discovery is nearly three times larger than the shale oil found in 2013 in the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Dakotas and Montana,

The oil, which is contained within layers of shale, is worth around $900 billion based on the current market price of oil. 

Yet, oil companies will have to pay for the extraction and processing of the oil. While experts predict that only 50 to 60 per cent of the oil will be recoverable, Forbes reports.

The Wolfcamp Shale is part of the sweeping and energy-rich Permian Basin, which encompasses the cities of Lubbock and Midland — 118 miles apart — and includes a series of basins and other geologic formations in West Texas and southern New Mexico. It's one of the most productive oil and gas regions in the U.S.







In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day,


----------



## laszlo (Nov 21, 2016)

earth is fracked & hacked nonstop; we all use oil&gas (even the green ones) and til the wells don't dry out nothing will change.

global economy is built on fossile fuel and no clean energy option is available now(if exist is not public and won't be...); current "green" solutions development&production create more waste&gases than using oil&gas.

we managed to change climate (not a hoax where i live in winter 20y ago we had -35°C and now -20....not to mention new summers...hoter every year...) and slowly killing all around...next generations will be in big shit


----------

