Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3)


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2009/2/10 16:30
From SE PA
Posts: 4806
Offline
Quote:

BeastBrown wrote:
Quote:

franklin wrote:
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Certainly could shake things up some. But again, you are using "exposed" in a manner that implies that stuff at depth is radioactive, and stuff at the surface isn't.


Not at all. Nothing in my post implies anything about depth being more radioactive than materials at/near the surface. Quite the contrary. My point is that significantly more surface or near surface material is disturbed in ways that increases human exposure but no one raises that as an issue. This whole thing is about rolling rocks (pun intended) in front of the gas industry.

I think we both agree that the engineering related to fracking is established and proven safe if followed. Same thing with well site procedures. Much of what is being published today is rehashed problems a few unscrupulous drillers had a few years ago and they have already been cited and punished.


BTW for BeastBrown; using diesel fuel as a fracking medium in shale oil drilling is an accepted and responsible practice. In these sites they are bringing up crude from which the diesel could not be differentiated.


Why is this talking about injected into, as far as accepted medium, I believe the diesel is what one very large company in particular favored and kept doing it and doing it, until they had the showdown, and they are still trying to use it with definition spats.

Of course, this whole deal is a scarce resource, and the fact that we are discussing diesel fuel as a fracing medium is freaking ridiculous, because we should just have thousands of clean nuclear power plants emitting steam, but.....we have bankers, and they love to milk the peasants with closed systems of science and money.


Wouldn't the bankers at GE and Westinghouse or the power companies be doing the same thing with nuclear you allege is happening with gas? Nuclear is dead because of Jimmy Carter and the greenies. The Japanese disaster put more nails in the lid. I do agree that nuclear should be one of our energy options. Uncle is PhD in nuclear engineering and was the general manager for the construction and start up of a nuke plant in Pa. No, it was not TMI. He was also Chief Engineer for the power company at the time. So I get a lot of honest inside information on the subject.

Diesel fuel is an excellent fracking fluid for shale oil. IMO it should not be used for gas fracking. (I also have inside information on these processes through someone I know well placed in the industry.) Some early drillers used it in Pa because it was cheap. I believe there are some state laws and even EPA regulations regarding the use of diesel in fracking.

Posted on: 2013/5/31 8:01


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13423
Offline
Even the gas wells typically produce some oil as condensate. That's what the tanks are for.

Yes, you are correct about Carter on the nuclear issue. It was his admin that stopped us from recycling fuel (breeder reactor) on a commercial basis, a decision which gave rise to our issues with nuclear waste. i.e. nuclear power does not have to produce such nasty waste, that is our choice. But that particular issue doesn't have much to do with greenies, it's a proliferation thing. To recycle the fuel may end up with zero high level waste, but during the cycle, you produce weapons grade material. Carter felt it was a bad example to tell the world that utilizing nuclear power means producing weapons grade material. If you don't recycle, it shows that you can have nuclear power WITHOUT taking that extra step to producing weapons. Further, if nuclear power was to be privately run, rather than public, allowing private companies to handle weapons grade material was a concern.

FWIW, it is a valid concern. I just disagree. Our power generation obvously causes a lot of problems in the world. And as a scientist, I see a well established solution to just about all of them. It dissapoints me that not only is it stalled by geopolitical concerns, but that there's not much effort to overcome those concerns, even though they are probably less than the geopolitical concerns that are being caused by the alternative.

The greenies, well, their influence was stopping us from building anything new at all with the word "nuclear" attached. And it's an ongoing thing, can't be pinned to any one admin or time frame. Though perhaps TMI and "The China Syndrome" kicked things off. The result of this was that instead of building more modern, safer, plants that produce less waste, we are keeping the current 1st generation plants open well beyond their designed lifetimes (gee, that's smart, in the name of "safety"). Further, it has pushed us more towards coal, gas, and oil, and prevented us from having a large, clean source of hydrogen, which has set back a potential hydrogen economy by decades.

IMO, the future is to have nuclear dominate power gen, and as a byproduct produce vast amounts of hydrogen, which can be utilized as an unwired, 100% clean fuel to replace oil. The technology is here. We just need to WANT to move in this direction. That the greenies are opposed to this just blows my mind. Imagine acid rain, gone. Smog, gone. Greenhouse gas emmissions reduced by over 90%. Mining and drilling, reduced by 99%. Pipelines, not needed. Reliance of foreign sorurces, gone. And greenies hold this back?

Posted on: 2013/5/31 8:51


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2009/2/10 16:30
From SE PA
Posts: 4806
Offline
As a naval officer Carter was assigned to a nuclear cleanup task which convinced him that the risks were not worth the gains. He maintained this perspective once elected President. He influenced US regulations on the power industry that effectively ended nuclear power. He also traded some promising nuclear technologies away in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was educated as Nuclear Engineer so his concerns were certainly valid. I just think we would have been better served if he allowed some leeway to improve processes and technologies over time.

Posted on: 2013/5/31 9:42


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2012/3/14 23:03
Posts: 314
Offline

franklin wrote:
Quote:


Wouldn't the bankers at GE and Westinghouse or the power companies be doing the same thing with nuclear you allege is happening with gas?



No, we wouldn't be discussing the fragmentation of forest in magnitudes of squares miles- with pipelines, subsidized wind farms, and thousands of miles of new roads and pads. This is before we even bring the issue of water pollution into the mix.

If we generated an equivalent amount of this power from nuclear, instead of gas, we would be dealing with generating from football field sized parcels, that have negative coefficient of reactivity reactors that do not melt down.

Obviously, as Pcray mentioned, the biggest benefit to nuclear generation for the nation is that the air would be much cleaner, and that would benefit people clear across the country from any type of power source point.

Greenies are not the primary force opposed to nuclear, it is the gas men. Look at the relative ease at which you can amass a billion dollar fortune from sitting on top of a gas reserve and manipulating a county or states heat and electricity. You pipe force-feed people. They have been derailing disposal sites since the beginning of nuclear power. These are the men that build themselves bunkers to weather the storms they create from their insatiable greed.

Posted on: 2013/5/31 15:12


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2006/12/10 19:49
Posts: 416
Offline
Beast - agree with your thoughts here. If the ''greenies'' were so powerful we wouldn't have tracking and mountain top mining in West Virginia...among a host of other things. Its the oil industry and the politics of "not in my back yard".

Posted on: 2013/6/9 8:35


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18309
Offline
Quote:

greenghost wrote:
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
And gudgeon is correct, we've been drilling for gas in PA for 150 years. Fracking for the majority of that time.


pc,
I thought fracking was a relatively recent innovation... maybe the ability to do it at the depths of the Marcellus formation?



It's not. I did some research on this, and the first time hydraulic fracturing was used was 1949, and the process has been used over a million times.

However, there was other fracking even before that using explosives and water. I saw a video of that being done once. Exciting, but not pretty.

It always makes me chuckle a little bit when people go all chicken little on fracking. But not as big of a chuckle when I read Maurice's response talking about Radon coming up in the fracking fluid. Sorry Mo, but Radon is a gas that is produced during the radioactive decay of other radioactive material such as Radium. It has a half life of 3.8 days. No exactly a big concern unless you are trapped in a large bubble with large concentrations of it, such as your house.

When first reading about it, the radioactive materials did bother me a little bit, but rather than simply fear what I didn't quite understand, I looked into it. I may not agree 100% with Pat's take on the hazards of it. More like 97%.

What's different isn't the fracking, it's the horizontal drilling. For you anti's out there, what's your alternative?




Posted on: 2013/6/10 15:38
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Fracking Issues 101
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8953
Online
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Quote:

greenghost wrote:
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
And gudgeon is correct, we've been drilling for gas in PA for 150 years. Fracking for the majority of that time.


pc,
I thought fracking was a relatively recent innovation... maybe the ability to do it at the depths of the Marcellus formation?



It's not. I did some research on this, and the first time hydraulic fracturing was used was 1949, and the process has been used over a million times.

However, there was other fracking even before that using explosives and water. I saw a video of that being done once. Exciting, but not pretty.

It always makes me chuckle a little bit when people go all chicken little on fracking. But not as big of a chuckle when I read Maurice's response talking about Radon coming up in the fracking fluid. Sorry Mo, but Radon is a gas that is produced during the radioactive decay of other radioactive material such as Radium. It has a half life of 3.8 days. No exactly a big concern unless you are trapped in a large bubble with large concentrations of it, such as your house.

When first reading about it, the radioactive materials did bother me a little bit, but rather than simply fear what I didn't quite understand, I looked into it. I may not agree 100% with Pat's take on the hazards of it. More like 97%.

What's different isn't the fracking, it's the horizontal drilling. For you anti's out there, what's your alternative?






http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... used-as-cooking-fuel?lite

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/sus ... a-source-of-green-energy/


Attach file:



jpg  Cow-dung.jpg (119.85 KB)
53_51b62d6736151.jpg 580X360 px

jpg  pb-110131-india-dung-whalen-01.photoblog900.jpg (654.20 KB)
53_51b62dafcd92e.jpg 900X575 px

Posted on: 2013/6/10 15:43


Re: Fracking Issues 101
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7019
Offline
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:


It always makes me chuckle a little bit when people go all chicken little on fracking. But not as big of a chuckle when I read Maurice's response talking about Radon coming up in the fracking fluid. Sorry Mo, but Radon is a gas that is produced during the radioactive decay of other radioactive material such as Radium. It has a half life of 3.8 days. No exactly a big concern unless you are trapped in a large bubble with large concentrations of it, such as your house.

When first reading about it, the radioactive materials did bother me a little bit, but rather than simply fear what I didn't quite understand, I looked into it. I may not agree 100% with Pat's take on the hazards of it. More like 97%.

What's different isn't the fracking, it's the horizontal drilling. For you anti's out there, what's your alternative?





Here is what I said....Whats so funny about it?


Quote:
Share with us the half truths...and why they are half truths. Just seemed to be a reporting of statistics. (except for the radium/uranium "use") but never the less is a by product that needs to be dealt with.

I found the evaporation pits nugget to be interesting. Evaporation of concentrated VOC's into the atmosphere. Is this one of the half truths?


I even put the word "use" in parenthesis questioning its context.

Happy to amuse you though. I will tell you what amuse me. I think its funny how you come in all smart and stuff at the end of a thread riding on PCrays coattails putting others down.


~chicken Little

Posted on: 2013/6/10 17:39
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18309
Offline
Quote:

afishinado wrote:
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Quote:

greenghost wrote:
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
And gudgeon is correct, we've been drilling for gas in PA for 150 years. Fracking for the majority of that time.


pc,
I thought fracking was a relatively recent innovation... maybe the ability to do it at the depths of the Marcellus formation?



It's not. I did some research on this, and the first time hydraulic fracturing was used was 1949, and the process has been used over a million times.

However, there was other fracking even before that using explosives and water. I saw a video of that being done once. Exciting, but not pretty.

It always makes me chuckle a little bit when people go all chicken little on fracking. But not as big of a chuckle when I read Maurice's response talking about Radon coming up in the fracking fluid. Sorry Mo, but Radon is a gas that is produced during the radioactive decay of other radioactive material such as Radium. It has a half life of 3.8 days. No exactly a big concern unless you are trapped in a large bubble with large concentrations of it, such as your house.

When first reading about it, the radioactive materials did bother me a little bit, but rather than simply fear what I didn't quite understand, I looked into it. I may not agree 100% with Pat's take on the hazards of it. More like 97%.

What's different isn't the fracking, it's the horizontal drilling. For you anti's out there, what's your alternative?






http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... used-as-cooking-fuel?lite

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/sus ... a-source-of-green-energy/



I'll be rich!

Fracking bad!

She said Phuket!

Posted on: 2013/6/11 6:47

Edited by FarmerDave on 2013/6/11 7:13:33
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18309
Offline
Quote:

Maurice wrote:


Here is what I said....Whats so funny about it?


Quote:
Share with us the half truths...and why they are half truths. Just seemed to be a reporting of statistics. (except for the radium/uranium "use") but never the less is a by product that needs to be dealt with.

I found the evaporation pits nugget to be interesting. Evaporation of concentrated VOC's into the atmosphere. Is this one of the half truths?


I even put the word "use" in parenthesis questioning its context.

Happy to amuse you though. I will tell you what amuse me. I think its funny how you come in all smart and stuff at the end of a thread riding on PCrays coattails putting others down.


~chicken Little


Wrong response. Here is a clue. I did specifically mention radon, and I don't see where you mentioned radon in that one. Try number 10.

But you are right. I have been relying on Pat way to often lately and for that I apologize. I have been very busy and he usually beats me to it anyway. I don't visit this page very often. Plus he is intelligent, reasonable, more articulate than me, and he doesn't simply fear what he doesn't understand. He goes out and does his own research on the subject, instead of spouting talking points. It's why we usually agree on things involving science.

And I didn't just agree with him. I added to it. You show me where anything that I said was inaccurate. The only thing that might be questionable is that I said first one was 1949. It may have actually been 1947, depending on the source of your information. Oh wait a second, you don't look for your own sources. Nevermind.


Posted on: 2013/6/11 7:09
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Fracking Issues 101

Joined:
2008/6/28 15:57
Posts: 737
Offline
There's a problem in this discussion, beginning at the first post: hydraulic fracking is not the only kind of fracking. Propane gel fracking has none of the environmental hazards of hydro-fracking.

It is subject to some hazards of its own, and thus requires more attention, safety precautions, and foolproofing than using water. But there isn't anything about the technology that's a deal-breaker. It's already in the process of becoming the new industry standard for fracking in places where there are no water supplies to tap.

As I see it, as of now the main obstacles to implementing it in Pa. are political. Gel-fracking lacks a constituency of advocates.

Most people don't even know that the tech exists, except for two groups: the gas extraction industry, which is loath to incur the expense for new equipment and the slower track for sinking wells that would result from switching over to the still-uncommon gel-fracking rigs, which also undoubtedly require a bit of extra procedures training for the operations crews; and the opposition groups who hate gas drilling in any form whatsoever- even with a technology that overcomes all of the worst environmental quality objections related to hydro-fracking.

Posted on: 2013/6/13 12:25



« 1 2 (3)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com