The dangers of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, "Gasland"

[Toma]

Wow!

Rent it, or downlaod it like I did from a torrent site... but watch this movie!... a real eye opener.

I downloaded of a torrent site. btjunkie.org

Here is a short story on the story on PBS.... but I hope you take the time to watch the original.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1452296560/

[FraserB]

Nothing worse than a hypocrite.

[derpderp]

You need to make like a single thread where you can post all your documentary suggestions.

[GT.....O?]

Being biased towards neither side, there are several problems in the video that most people in the oil industry could comment on.

Here in Alberta, "frac"ing is not a "last resort" method. Many to most of the wells in Alberta need to be fractured in order to get them to actually flow. However, that being said, in his documentary and specifically about the problems in Pensilvania allot of the wells that were drilled and caused problems to the drinking water were shallow gas wells. Shallow in respect to the depth of Alberta wells. And in many cases the fracturing processes in Pensilvania should have been more regulated because the wells were very close to their aquifers.

However, specifically in the video, there have been many reported cases where gases were detected in the water wells, but there were reported cases dating back to the 1950 and 1960s before "fracing", and even drilling for that fact, even began in those regions.
It all depends on what is separating the well from the water source. Is sand the only thing separating the two? Is the aquifer located on top of a coal bed or layer that constantly releases gases? The change is what is important. Pensilvania and Colorado definitely need to govern and intervene here.

On another note, there are laws and regulations that are very strict on waste pits and contaminated fluids and contaminated cuttings. The OHS and ERCB would shut down a site if they knew a pit didn't have a liner.

I would hate to know what would happen if everyone knew about the dangers of "invert" and how toxic it is.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by derpderp
You need to make like a single thread where you can post all your documentary suggestions.
I second that motion.

[nobb]

Such a retarded documentary. The reason why the "official tests" proved that there was no problem in contamination is probably because ground water is usually <500m whereas your shale gas reservoirs are >1500m deep. I find it highly unlikely that a 1500m frac will affect a 500m water aquifer.

[johnboy27]

Originally posted by GT.....O?
On another note, there are laws and regulations that are very strict on waste pits and contaminated fluids and contaminated cuttings. The OHS and ERCB would shut down a site if they knew a pit didn't have a liner.

I would hate to know what would happen if everyone knew about the dangers of &quot;invert&quot; and how toxic it is.
The funny part is that in the States their laws and regulations really don't do shit in regards to contaminated fluids being dumped just about anywhere. When my coworkers went to the states to frac with our American counterparts my boys were all asking where the vac truck was at the end of a very large oilgel job. The Americans laughed and asked what the hell a vac truck was used for , they don't even suck the horsepowers or blender or anything out at the end of a job. They just open the valves and let any fluids dump on the ground. All hell would break loose if we tried to pull that crap here in Canada. We aren't even allowed to dump fresh water on the ground.LOL

[ExtraSlow]

In Eastern Alberta, there have been well documented cases of water wells containing natural gas, even from the late 1800's.

This "documentary" is on the same level as Michael Moore. It may contain some facts, but it's hard to tell between all the gross eggagerations and politically motivated editorializing.

If anyone is interested in hearing another side to the argument, click this link:
Energy In Depth - Debunking Gasland (http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/)

[LollerBrader]

"15 Claims the Natural Gas Industry Wants You to Believe and Why They’re Wrong"

http://www.alternet.org/water/149211/15_claims_the_natural_gas_industry_wants_you_to_believe_and_why_they%E2%80%99re_wrong/?page=entire

[johnboy27]

An interesting read although I had no doubt alot of the info in Gasland was BS.

[Toma]

Originally posted by johnboy27
An interesting read although I had no doubt alot of the info in Gasland was BS.

Oh, I dunno.... seems serious and real enough that SOME decent people are now investigating the cases, fracing is temporarily suspended in some places in the US etc.

The movie presented some interesting info, that websiste, "energy in depth" is just a paid front and lobby group for oil and gas co.

That's their job, discredit, lie, exaggerate....

A geologist buddy of mine sent me the link to "Gasland", and says to the best of his knowledge, it is accurate.

And even intuitively, from a common sense standpoint, it makes sense. You go pumping millions of gallons of toxic shit into the ground.... it's gonna spread, and end up in unpredictable areas.

You are not pumping this stuff into a lined swimming pool, its going into the ground, under great enough pressure to "fracture" surrounding geologic formation.

The fact that they dont get it all out is evidence enough for me. Where did the shit go then?

[Toma]

Originally posted by LollerBrader
&quot;15 Claims the Natural Gas Industry Wants You to Believe and Why They’re Wrong&quot;

http://www.alternet.org/water/149211/15_claims_the_natural_gas_industry_wants_you_to_believe_and_why_they%E2%80%99re_wrong/?page=entire

Interesting....

[johnboy27]

Originally posted by Toma


Oh, I dunno.... seems serious and real enough that SOME decent people are now investigating the cases, fracing is temporarily suspended in some places in the US etc.

The movie presented some interesting info, that websiste, &quot;energy in depth&quot; is just a paid front and lobby group for oil and gas co.

That's their job, discredit, lie, exaggerate....

A geologist buddy of mine sent me the link to &quot;Gasland&quot;, and says to the best of his knowledge, it is accurate.
I work in the industry and some of the stuff said in the "energy in depth" article is absolutely true. Fraccing in shale uses way less chemical than just about any other type of fracturing. You generally use water and a friction reducer and sand, that's it. The friction reducer we use isn't even regulated under transportation of dangerous goods laws.
There is a lot of BS in the gasland mocumentary as well I am sure the other articles sneak around the truth as well.

[ExtraSlow]

Toma, I don't disagree that many of the voices that are defending hydraulic fracturing are people with a financial interest in the matter. But it's improtant to note that there are powerful lobby groups that want to ban this process. There is money to be made either way.
For instance, in the US, the Coal lobby is pretty powerful in several states, and cheap natural gas is a natural replacement for coal.

All of the info you will find on this (and most) issue will be biased. It's a pain in the ass, but you really need to sift through the bullshit to find the kernel of truth.

Good luck on your quest for truth.

[ZenOps]

I think it simply comes down to what you place more value on - drinking water or natural gas. It is a tradeoff in many places you can either have one or the other but not both.

In New York, perfectly clean water is a rare thing. Along with a fish dinner, that actually has a fish that has come from clean water. Its no wonder an Alberta whitefish or walleye goes for $30 a plate in New York.

In Alberta - we have lots of excess water, so much that if we don't use it, it basically just runs into the rivers is not really used by anyone, save a few hundred angry (and rightfully so) natives that might happen to be at the end of the stream. Fracking here - as mentioned is much much deeper, and much less likely to contaminate surface water (but it is possible)

Wiebo, as a farmer - would probably place more value on water. Modern society places far more importance on the gas.

http://watercanada.net/2010/canada-abstains-from-un-vote/

Canada has taken the stance that water is not really a basic human right. Abstaining does not mean that they are against clean water, just that we really don't care either way. Which I'm sure completely takes the breath away of people who live near the equator in deserts.

One of the stronger reasons for democracy - I'm not entirely sure the young generation agrees with some current policies of the current govt.

The main argument for "Frack the earth" is that water - is very abundant and from a chemists standpoint - fairly easy to clean. Natural gas is rare and expensive - and we'd all freeze to death without it.

I have no doubt that Taseko coppers tailing pond (for copper) would have contaminated much more water than all the fracking combined in Alberta. Same with the Sudbury nickel mine. Such is the price of progress however.

[FraserB]

.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by ZenOps

In Alberta - we have lots of excess water, so much that if we don't use it, it basically just runs into the rivers is not really used by anyone, save a few hundred angry (and rightfully so) natives
that might happen to be at the end of the stream.


Natives are angry over rainwater runoff, but of toxic outputs from the tar sands that are poisoning their water supply.

Cancer rates, etc, are increasing quickly in communities downstream of the tar sands - Most of which happen to be natives. Probably more than "a couple of hundred".

[Pinner]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


Natives are angry over rainwater runoff, but of toxic outputs from the tar sands that are poisoning their water supply.

Cancer rates, etc, are increasing quickly in communities downstream of the tar sands - Most of which happen to be natives. Probably more than &quot;a couple of hundred&quot;.

And the river flows north into some pristine lands and eventually the Beaufort Sea/Arctic Ocean.