Fracking Haters

Yeah man! (I like this guy!)

They were already ahead of me. Looks like vegetable oil and alcohol are already being deployed.

http://www.westword.com/2013-06-13/news/whats-in-fracking-fluid/full/

The biggest reason there is so much discussion about fracking and such polarized views is because of fracking has been identified as a political hot potato. There are arguments for and against but very view people who claimed to have been affected by fracking have ever had a base line of analysis done on their water prior to fracking. To claim a problem or change in water quality can only be determined by suitable analysis done by accredited labs and accredited samplers. It is also my understanding that most wells are fracked with water that is considered non-potable. The frackers will use salty water often from the same drilling hole used to explore for gas.

There are people who do not want fracking because it will release too much fuels that can contribute to climate change. These same people, identified as the "greenies", are the same protesters that do not want to see any development of any hydrocarbons from any source. The fact does remain we will need hydrocarbons for a long time. You should also recognize that not all crude oil goes into fuels but much can be found in the clothes you wear, the computer you use, the furniture you sit, etc. Natural gas can be assumed to have only one function and that is to use as a fuel that will contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.

I have seen radioactive isotopes being a reason to stop fracking because it can get released into the water. These RIs will not be in the water we drink unless it is a private water well supply where testing is not done often enough to know different. If it can be found in gas formations, we should also assume these natural occurring isotopes will be part of the noxious emissions found in burning of gases today. Do we have a problem with atmospheric radioactivity today from these sources. I am not aware unless it is near a nuclear plant that has been damaged.

The one area fracking can be a potential problem is when it occurs in an area where there exist old wells that may or may not be properly sealed and abandoned. The people responsible for the fracking and the monitoring authority should do an extensive survey of existing wells and assure they will not be a problem. Fracking can be safe.

In summary, fracking provides ammunition to the protesters based often on the desire to shut down any further burning of fossil fuels and atmospheric climate change. Those people affected should be diligent in finding out the water quality of the area and in particular their own well. Most government agencies will provide a list of labs and hydrogeologists capable of undertaking the project. Sometimes more than one opinion is required. This post is just my opinion based on many years in the ground water industry. I have also spent many years in the environmental field and have a strong desire to assure the future of the planet is suitable for my great great grandchildren. The same can be said of the people in the industry who are considered carpetbaggers by some. They also want to assure the future and most often have long term residences in the areas worked. Many of the long term investments many of us have are often heavily invested in the same gas fields. Mutual funds, pensions, etc will have a portion of the investments found in these fields. Perhaps a stronger protest would be to assure your pensions are not part of the fracking fund if that is your desire.

The comments about greenies don't sound like an engineer's comment. It sounds like corporate propaganda. Why does Europe resist fracking? It's not because they don't want cheap power it's because they know it is dangerous and is likely to poison the water. Why does the USA allow and encourage it? Because of money, pure and simple...there is no concern about the environment nor public welfare. Why has the USA allow these companies to hide what they are pumping into the ground? Why have we forbidden the EPA from monitoring and checking this industry...simply too much money lining the pockets of our congressmen?

If the industry really believes it is safe then we must demand that they do the following:

1. Stipulate what they are pumping into the ground. 2. Put in test wells that surround their property and have mandatory testing of all wells that surround their property and annual testing of these wells.

Yes, this will add some additional costs but any thinking person will agree that it is small compared to poisoning our ground water.

STOP uncontrolled fracking today.

and that comment was from a trained engineer? I'm thinking no

Environmental Engineer................maybe.

Had Environmental Engineers working on the watershed projects for farmers, their projects failed,.... of course they have already moved on............... (3) words describe Environmental Engineers like those....... Pencil Neck Failures.

^{Is Pencil Neck one word or two?}

To clarify your understanding and my understanding of the word, 'engineer'. An engineer is a person who drives a train in the UK.

The man made valid points, accept them.

I say it's valid, regardless of the training of the new comer.

First, I was not sure if you were addressing my post or to the opening post. "Greenies" was not my term but rather a quote from OP. I am a retired Water Resource Engineer with a background in physical geography and spent many years in both the public and private sector environmental field. The European resistance to fracking may be greater than found in NA or China or even elsewhere. I suspect that a few of the more vocal countries like France protest any C02 increase from energy because they rely on their primary energy source of nuclear fuel. Why act as an advocate for other fuels? Europe also has a strong green movement compared to other areas.

There are many questions about what the fracking processors are using in water to frack and where it ends up. I believe they should be obligated to disclose the "what" portion. My primary career in the ground water industry allowed me to observe fracking in different water bearing formations. This is not the same as deep well fracking in the gas industry but holds many similarities. The one thing you see more of in the shallow water aquifer fracking is the use of CO2 as means of fracking. It would seem a viable option for many deep well frackers and perhaps a better alternative. Injecting CO2 into deep formations will achieve many of the objectives without the use of unknown chemicals. I would not prohibit fracking as most on this thread seem to want. It is safe and can be made safer with the use of CO2 instead of juiced up water.

Do people object to fracking based solely on water quality issues? Are objections based on the reduction of developing any potential green house gas fuels? The injection of CO2 achieves two ends. It puts CO2 back into the ground and does not need to use water in the process. Is that more acceptable and if so why does the industry not just use CO2? It is safe and effective as stated.

Chinchilla drinks to treated CSG water supply Wed,23 Oct 2013

In what is believed to be an Australian-first, treated coal seam gas water is being pumped into the drinking supplies of Chinchilla on southern Queensland's.

I've generally stayed away from commenting in threads about fracking, but a thought occurred to me that led me to a link that is both humorous (because of the site where the question is answered) and obliquely apropos.

Why not frack for gold here.

Of course, many people have much more gold in their teeth, requiring much less effort to reclaim. Then there's the ready source of food it could supply, too, as in Soylent Green. We could be much more resourceful if we wanted to be.

(Obligatory disclaimer: The interviews expressed in this post do not represent any logical thought on the part of the poster(s).)