Fracking Issues 101

[pcray1231]

Talking in terms of radioactivity only here, not toxins. But it's rock. You're moving rock from one place to another.

For starters, lets accept that ALL rock has radioactivity. Some rock types more than others. But being at depth isn't anything special. It's not higher concentrations because it's deep, like some plague that's been buried for ages and being deep is the only reason it hasn't killed us yet. It's not like you're bringing something up that the surface hasn't seen, the surface is very much the same! If I measure natural rock radioactivity here, and then drive 30 miles to the east and measure again, it may be very different.

So these tailings bring many rock types up, mixed together. They could very well have increased levels of radioactivity compared to the rock right here, while still being less than the background 30 miles to the east. Or it could be less than both.

If the train crashes, it'll dump a bunch of, well, rock, on top of rock!

Limestone formations, for instance, are rich in phosphates. Some of those formations would be among the most radioactive sources of rock. Where's your outrage that we mine it, crush it up and put the gravel on people's driveways, or gasp, make it into sand and dump it into the headwaters of acidic trout streams!!!!

 

[greenghost]

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?

 

[DGC]

You see Greenghost, a frack is a frack, so they are all the same because the name is the same. By the same token, a Trico is the same as a Green Drake because they're both mayflies. Just because one is a zillion times bigger doesn't mean they're not the same just so long as you call them the same thing. Once you learn these mind over matter things it's all good.

PR flaks, lobbyists and politicians play this game nonstop.

 

[pcray1231]

Greenghost,

They've been fracking in PA since 1960 at least, probably much earlier than that. It's not a new technique. As DGC alludes to, though, Marcellus certainly adds a new flavor. For one, Marcellus is a lot deeper than the traditional wells. More importantly, horizontal drilling is new. On a horizontal well, the volume of the borehole is exponentially higher. Which means the volume of water used to frack is also exponentially higher, as is the volume of cuttings which are removed, the pressures involved, the size of the pad, the amount of truck traffic, etc, etc, etc. Same process, but everything is MUCH bigger.

The same basic principles do apply. What matters from an environmental standpoint is only what's above the water table. i.e. what happens on the surface and in the top few hundred feet of the hole (cement job and so forth). It's just that with everything so vastly upscaled, the unavoidable impacts are higher, potential for damaging errors and accidents are higher, as are the effects of those events.

There are real impacts, and valid concerns about more serious complications. I just think radioactivity falls WAY down the list of concerns. It always bugs me that nobody ever seems to be objective on issues like this. If you're anti-drilling, every thing is horrible, and if the drillers had their way this would be an uninhabitable moonscape. If you're pro-drilling, the industry can do no wrong and there are zero negative impacts. Neither is anywhere close to reality.

 

[BeastBrown]

I think the problem was this report-
List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania

An earlier version of the list, provided by DEP to the Associated Press and published in newspapers throughout the state this week, purportedly included all of the chemicals used in Pennsylvania during the gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing. Instead, it included not just the chemicals pumped deep underground but also those stored or used on a well site, including fuel for vehicles and brake fluid.

“You can blame it on me,” Scott Perry, the director of DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, said on Wednesday.

The original list was a compilation of the chemicals identified on safety documents called material safety data sheets that hydraulic fracturing contractors must submit to the department, but he did not realize that it included substances the contractors use both above and below ground on a well site, he said. The second list was winnowed by a DEP chemist, who recognized that some of the chemicals on the initial list are not among those injected underground during the fracturing process.

Thus it was broadly reported to and by the press that products like diesel fuel and brake fluid are being pumped underground in fracking fluids. Too bad the retraction didn't receive as much attention...

Is this not diesel going down the hole here? "have injected over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states between 2005 and 2009. "

source:
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news%2Fwaxman-markey-and-degette-investigation-finds-continued-use-of-diesel-in-hydraulic-fracturing-f

 

[franklin]

How much radioactive material is exposed each year around the state from road construction? There was certainly a lot during the highway construction boom years. Many hundreds of thousands of times more than what the current drilling is exposing.

 

[pcray1231]

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. Being at depth makes it no more or less radioactive than the surface.

ALL ROCK IS RADIOACTIVE. Just some types more than others, based on their composition, not their depth.

If you dig up rock and lay it on the surface, it is just as just as likely that you are digging up less radioactive material and covering more radioactive material. In a road, or a well, some of the material brought up will be more radioactive than the surface at that spot, and some of it less, as both the surface rock and the stuff brought up will vary wildly.

 

[franklin]

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.

 

[pcray1231]

I think we both agree that the engineering related to fracking is established and proven safe if followed.

To a point. I wouldn't say that ANY industrial practice is "proven safe", because none of them are. Nomatter what the procedures, you can't engineer to zero accidents. And even without accidents, they all still have negative impacts. Continuous improvement is a good thing, within reason. But here's the part I agree with:

This whole thing is about rolling rocks (pun intended) in front of the gas industry.

You're right of course, and it's not within reason. Trying to improve on REAL concerns, or force individual companies to play by the rules? Fine. Inventing concerns to stop or slow entire industries at all costs? Not fine.

If opponents succeed in stopping them, or driving the price higher, what does it accomplish? We still need X amount of energy at the end of the day. Do we mine more coal? Import more oil? Are the issues with that better or worse?

There's an inevitable result of turning non-issues into issues. You pay more for dirtier forms of energy.

 

[BeastBrown]

franklin wrote:

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.

 

[franklin]

BeastBrown wrote:

franklin wrote:

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.

 

[pcray1231]

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?

 

[franklin]

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.

 

[BeastBrown]

franklin wrote:

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.

 

[AndyP]

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".

 

[FarmerDave]

greenghost wrote:

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?

 

[afishinado]

FarmerDave wrote:

greenghost wrote:

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/2011/01/31/5959475-indian-villager-makes-cow-dung-cakes-used-as-cooking-fuel?lite

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/sustainable-projects/cow-dung-a-source-of-green-energy/

 

[Maurice]

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?

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

 

[FarmerDave]

afishinado wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

greenghost wrote:

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/2011/01/31/5959475-indian-villager-makes-cow-dung-cakes-used-as-cooking-fuel?lite

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/sustainable-projects/cow-dung-a-source-of-green-energy/

I'll be rich!

Fracking bad!

She said Phuket!

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice wrote:


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

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.