Gas Prices....Good, or Bad?
- Thread starter Don M.
- Start date
Son_of_Perdition
Senior Member
Sorry, my post was a generalized reference to all the warnings or non-warning made by 'experts' in the field of fracking or any other method. I've been led by the nose too many times in my life with promises that what we are doing will not affect your safety or health in anyway now or in the future. I wasn't directing my post at anyone in particular.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
-
You've mentioned water wells and how they 'frack' them....am I misunderstanding that? Because it seems to me that the main difference is that water wells are drilled and water comes out as needed, but nothing is added to them. No chemicals, nothing. That is a huge difference and it seems to me that suggesting they are the same (as I think you might be implying) is disingenuous. The same goes for geothermal drilling. The only thing that goes down those drilled holes is cables/pipes but no chemicals are forced into the surrounding layers.
You also fail to address the issue of using water that is potentially drinking water and the potential impact of contamination of groundwater and air.
Also that website never said each fracked well has 600 chemicals injected, only that up to 600 may be used/chosen from.
Darn, I did not know that I was to take a complete response to the post you referenced. What I did respond to was a direct answer to a direct comment. It said something about 600 and no what if's were offered. I understood it to be wrong as I knew from past reviews of fracking that most usually use about 3.
Did you read any of my posts about fracking? Some water wells that do not produce well get fracked below the pipe itself. Not any of my misleading at all. Have you tried, searched for, "fracking water wells" and see what might come up? Try this one http://www.agwt.org/content/hydrofracking-wells and read the second paragraph 'How does it work', This should answer some of your questions.
Fracking depends on what you are wanting or doing. Water wells are vertical for most. Oil and gas wells are vertical for much of the trip but near the level wanted they turn to a horizontal bore that goes a long ways through the material source. Fracking is done on the horizontal sections as needed to encourage better flow. If the wells are producing good enough I would doubt the need for the time and expense of fracking.
Here is another link that I just found and read. Sounds good to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...ot-fracking-for-water-contamination.html?_r=0
Did you read any of my posts about fracking? Some water wells that do not produce well get fracked below the pipe itself. Not any of my misleading at all. Have you tried, searched for, "fracking water wells" and see what might come up? Try this one http://www.agwt.org/content/hydrofracking-wells and read the second paragraph 'How does it work', This should answer some of your questions.
Fracking depends on what you are wanting or doing. Water wells are vertical for most. Oil and gas wells are vertical for much of the trip but near the level wanted they turn to a horizontal bore that goes a long ways through the material source. Fracking is done on the horizontal sections as needed to encourage better flow. If the wells are producing good enough I would doubt the need for the time and expense of fracking.
Here is another link that I just found and read. Sounds good to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...ot-fracking-for-water-contamination.html?_r=0
Last edited:
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
Sorry Bob, but maybe I'm not understanding something here. What do you mean some water wells that do not produce well get fracked below the pipe itself? I just looked at your link and it isn't talking about adding any chemicals to those water wells, just injecting high pressure water in and I don't think the concern is so much the water being injected, as it is the chemicals. Am I wrong on that?
I came across another illustration that looks pretty good to me, but then this is actually the first time I've ever spent any kind of time on this topic so maybe I'm not seeing something that is important to your argument. http://exploreshale.org
And according to this site, it's saying that shale gas wells are bored up to 8000 feet vertically and then up to 10,000 feet horizontally. I guess all of that would be dependant on the site wouldn't it?
It would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that a shale gas well with those kinds of distances are going to have far more impact than a residential well that on average are about 200 feet vertically. A water well is barely breaking the 'earth's skin' if you know what I mean. We all survive mosquito bites, but if someone puts a 6" knife in us, the effect is more significant. Maybe a bad analogy but the two visual links that I found helped me understand what this is all about. So far I haven't read any of either sides science. At the same time though I feel like I'm inclined to go on the side of 'it's dangerous to the environment and possibly to our health. Maybe I should spend a couple days looking at this and if you have a good site that's written for a non-sciencey brain, I'd look at it. Anyway, have a nice evening.
I came across another illustration that looks pretty good to me, but then this is actually the first time I've ever spent any kind of time on this topic so maybe I'm not seeing something that is important to your argument. http://exploreshale.org
And according to this site, it's saying that shale gas wells are bored up to 8000 feet vertically and then up to 10,000 feet horizontally. I guess all of that would be dependant on the site wouldn't it?
It would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that a shale gas well with those kinds of distances are going to have far more impact than a residential well that on average are about 200 feet vertically. A water well is barely breaking the 'earth's skin' if you know what I mean. We all survive mosquito bites, but if someone puts a 6" knife in us, the effect is more significant. Maybe a bad analogy but the two visual links that I found helped me understand what this is all about. So far I haven't read any of either sides science. At the same time though I feel like I'm inclined to go on the side of 'it's dangerous to the environment and possibly to our health. Maybe I should spend a couple days looking at this and if you have a good site that's written for a non-sciencey brain, I'd look at it. Anyway, have a nice evening.
.........................
You are right, nothing about chemicals at all. Did you read the description of two rubber type plugs put down the well past the end of the pipe and and the second well beyond that area. Then pressurized the space between to help crack the rocks to enhance the water flow?
Chemicals probably not needed so not mentioned at all. Even on the oil or gas wells there may be no real reason for chemicals but for some certain chemicals may be needed. I depend on the fracking crews to know what they are doing and to do it correctly. I read some and either accept or not.
Water wells not producing well sometimes need some help. Water wells for agriculture and industry need strong steady flows. Much different from normal house hold wells and needs. I had a freind that would, for his rural household needs. lower some dynamite down to the lower area and explode it to try to get better water flow. I don't know if it worked and he did say it was likely illegal where he lived too. That was thirty years ago and he went to somewhere north and I went south after we both were let go from our jobs, early retirement offers.
I am also thinking that one of my links was to an article about some problems about poor water wells and such were a problem as the fracking oil wells are built with multiple pipes and concrete separating them for good sealing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...ot-fracking-for-water-contamination.html?_r=0
Keep reading as this entire situation needs good study to understand and so far there is no reason for folks around the world to do without oil or gas for transportation, heating, cooking, etc., to please the ultra concerned ones that for me, do not tell the truth but are trying to make political decisions over scientific studies.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
Well like anything Bob, everybody has their own perspective even on this. And this is just my opinion for what it's worth, but I don't think that there is any comparison between drilling a 'little' well to take water from and drilling a shale gas well that will include much greater distances and toxic chemicals.
I think if as the first link I found indicated, there are 1000 instances of home wells being contaminated possibly as a result of shale gas fracking then maybe there are serious problems with the process and the 'science' needs to be done and redone and settle the issue instead of just guessing that all is good. But, I'm going to do a little more reading and we shall see.
************
So I just read your link Bob and according to it, leaking into residential wells is likely the fault of faulty sealing (with cement) of the shale wells. It comes down to producers who aren't careful. One black mark then against the industry which is valid apparently.
I think if as the first link I found indicated, there are 1000 instances of home wells being contaminated possibly as a result of shale gas fracking then maybe there are serious problems with the process and the 'science' needs to be done and redone and settle the issue instead of just guessing that all is good. But, I'm going to do a little more reading and we shall see.
************
So I just read your link Bob and according to it, leaking into residential wells is likely the fault of faulty sealing (with cement) of the shale wells. It comes down to producers who aren't careful. One black mark then against the industry which is valid apparently.
Last edited:
I reread my post and to me it says, not the fracking itself as some authors seem to think but a failure in the well construction itself is the problem. Sort of why the title of the article caught my eye.
Well Leaks, Not Fracking, Are Linked to Fouled Water
I had stopped following this argument a while back as it seemed that the facts seemed to show, in the US at least, that the successes were much greater than the losses. Seems that I was wrong with that idea as we seem to see more and more of certain groups efforts to stop oil production at any cost to society. Great, shut down access to what is needed to keep our businesses and industries from going along readily to bring us better ways of life. End the ability to have economical fuel and services for autos, trucks, trains, and planes for the current needs. Why the sudden end to the new clean coal power plants for our power generation. That was definitly a political call, not from facts, as the plant was built in Indiana by those prior to our current Presidents arrival and was waiting for its production test. Never happened as on of our Presidents first actions was to demand a shut down for coal fired plants. A result of some political, not tested idea pushed by certain claims of anti far too much for successful living in our world. Two more years and we will have a new President in the US and then, no matter which party wins, we will have a chance at fixing some very poor political actions with acceptable real solutions. Maybe clean coal will come back, maybe not. Shutting off our plentiful coal reserves in the US was likely a big push to develop the newer ways of drilling to provide more oil as we do today, with horizontal wells and fracking added. There, I just had a political moment of my own.
My comments about water wells or oil and gas wells was only in regards to the concept and action of 'fracking'. Fracking is an action used in all types of wells to enhance flow rates. Fracking is not the problem as it is quality well construction that makes the difference. In some reading I have done it was stated that some of our drilling companies do have better results and less leakage than some other companies.
Reading more is important.
Well Leaks, Not Fracking, Are Linked to Fouled Water
I had stopped following this argument a while back as it seemed that the facts seemed to show, in the US at least, that the successes were much greater than the losses. Seems that I was wrong with that idea as we seem to see more and more of certain groups efforts to stop oil production at any cost to society. Great, shut down access to what is needed to keep our businesses and industries from going along readily to bring us better ways of life. End the ability to have economical fuel and services for autos, trucks, trains, and planes for the current needs. Why the sudden end to the new clean coal power plants for our power generation. That was definitly a political call, not from facts, as the plant was built in Indiana by those prior to our current Presidents arrival and was waiting for its production test. Never happened as on of our Presidents first actions was to demand a shut down for coal fired plants. A result of some political, not tested idea pushed by certain claims of anti far too much for successful living in our world. Two more years and we will have a new President in the US and then, no matter which party wins, we will have a chance at fixing some very poor political actions with acceptable real solutions. Maybe clean coal will come back, maybe not. Shutting off our plentiful coal reserves in the US was likely a big push to develop the newer ways of drilling to provide more oil as we do today, with horizontal wells and fracking added. There, I just had a political moment of my own.
My comments about water wells or oil and gas wells was only in regards to the concept and action of 'fracking'. Fracking is an action used in all types of wells to enhance flow rates. Fracking is not the problem as it is quality well construction that makes the difference. In some reading I have done it was stated that some of our drilling companies do have better results and less leakage than some other companies.
Reading more is important.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
You're right, reading the info is important and frankly I find that on this forum there seems to a tendency to ignore links that support a contributors side of any given debate. Now that may be an impression that is incorrect but that's the way it appears to me.
As far as crappy wells being the cause of water contamination, that's something that must always be addressed. If it weren't for the 'anti' side bringing up these kinds of issues (even when they happen infrequently) those corporations doing it wouldn't be inclined to improve. They are corporations whose owners live far away and their focus is and always has been the bottom line. Improvements and research take away from that bottom line and so without aggressive 'policing' from activist groups, I highly doubt that they would be moved to improve for the most part. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but the fact that regularly, industrial corporations are found out to have hidden their failures, etc., proves my point. I have made a point over the last few months of bookmarking stories that appear about instances of corporations doing just that (hiding bad acts) and then being found out. So far, two dozen such stories.
Just like society needs policeman (except for the bad apples of course), the environment needs concerned activists.
As far as crappy wells being the cause of water contamination, that's something that must always be addressed. If it weren't for the 'anti' side bringing up these kinds of issues (even when they happen infrequently) those corporations doing it wouldn't be inclined to improve. They are corporations whose owners live far away and their focus is and always has been the bottom line. Improvements and research take away from that bottom line and so without aggressive 'policing' from activist groups, I highly doubt that they would be moved to improve for the most part. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but the fact that regularly, industrial corporations are found out to have hidden their failures, etc., proves my point. I have made a point over the last few months of bookmarking stories that appear about instances of corporations doing just that (hiding bad acts) and then being found out. So far, two dozen such stories.
Just like society needs policeman (except for the bad apples of course), the environment needs concerned activists.