On February 29 2012 00:12 N3rV[Green] wrote: All I know about fracking is a few hellish stories from my mother (an ER doctor). The worst of which being about a young man that fell into one of the collection pools. (where a bunch of the nasty fracking solution is kept after it comes back up)
He died from massive organ failure, the nurse than took his clothes off and the doctor that took care of him both nearly died from the same thing. The fracking solution is seriously fucking no good.
Actually the vast majority of the solution is water. According to wikipedia, only about 2% of the stuff then inject into the ground is chemical additives. And of that, much of it is harmless. My suspicion (assuming this story is true) is that this guy probably fell into a pool of the pure chemical additives, before it was combined with the water. I imagine if you fell into a pool of pure anti-freeze, benzene, methanol, boric acie, lead, and heavy metals it would kill you pretty quickly.
But as a 2% solution of water, you would probably have to drink a gallon of the stuff to kill you that quickly. Again assuming the story is true, I think the bigger issue here would be the gross violation of worker safety rather than environmental damage. Can't have an open pool of highly toxic chemicals, Osha would not approve I think...
Actually the vast majority of the solution is water. According to wikipedia, only about 2% of the stuff then inject into the ground is chemical additives. And of that, much of it is harmless. My suspicion (assuming this story is true) is that this guy probably fell into a pool of the pure chemical additives, before it was combined with the water. I imagine if you fell into a pool of pure anti-freeze, benzene, methanol, boric acie, lead, and heavy metals it would kill you pretty quickly.
But as a 2% solution of water, you would probably have to drink a gallon of the stuff to kill you that quickly. Again assuming the story is true, I think the bigger issue here would be the gross violation of worker safety rather than environmental damage. Can't have an open pool of highly toxic chemicals, Osha would not approve I think...
We don't actually know WHAT the solution is, because what goes into it isn't a constant (changes from location to location, have even heard from Halliburton workers that they really just throw together whatever they have around and just go with it.)
So you can't just say that it's 2% chemical 98% water. I've had 3 or 4 buddies that have worked for Halliburton out in the Colorado Plateau doing fracking. It's honestly all too scary to even think about.
Just try to imagine a man who wakes up, and buys 4 8 hour energies for his day, then over 12 hours later when his shift is done, he BUYS 4 MORE 8 HOUR ENERGIES.
That is a Halliburton worker, and it's seriously not uncommon.
On February 29 2012 00:40 N3rV[Green] wrote: We don't actually know WHAT the solution is, because what goes into it isn't a constant (changes from location to location, have even heard from Halliburton workers that they really just throw together whatever they have around and just go with it.)
Somehow I think the process is drastically more complicated than this. If they could just "throw together whatever" then why are they using the chemicals at all? My guess is they have some skilled chemical engineers that carefully develop a mixture based on the size of the well, composition of the rock, etc.
Actually the vast majority of the solution is water. According to wikipedia, only about 2% of the stuff then inject into the ground is chemical additives. And of that, much of it is harmless. My suspicion (assuming this story is true) is that this guy probably fell into a pool of the pure chemical additives, before it was combined with the water. I imagine if you fell into a pool of pure anti-freeze, benzene, methanol, boric acie, lead, and heavy metals it would kill you pretty quickly.
But as a 2% solution of water, you would probably have to drink a gallon of the stuff to kill you that quickly. Again assuming the story is true, I think the bigger issue here would be the gross violation of worker safety rather than environmental damage. Can't have an open pool of highly toxic chemicals, Osha would not approve I think...
And I've been told by people who have done the work that all they need is stuff corrosive enough to break apart the rock. They seriously don't give a shit what they throw into the ground. They don't even get 100% of the solution back up to the surface, and even if they do it just sits in a pool (generally uncovered, I fucking live out there where most of this is going on man, I've seen plenty with mine own two eyes) and they just leave it once they're done.
This practice is horrific and is being used purely for stupid financial gain.
On February 29 2012 00:53 N3rV[Green] wrote: And I've been told by people who have done the work that all they need is stuff corrosive enough to break apart the rock. They seriously don't give a shit what they throw into the ground. They don't even get 100% of the solution back up to the surface, and even if they do it just sits in a pool (generally uncovered, I fucking live out there where most of this is going on man, I've seen plenty with mine own two eyes) and they just leave it once they're done.
This practice is horrific and is being used purely for stupid financial gain.
In my experience the people actually doing the work tend to have little or no understanding of the engineering behind it; they usually just do whatever the engineers tell them to do.
I'm not going to defend the actions of the oil companies; clearly they have shown that when left unregulated as they ahve been in many developing countries like Nigeria, they have no issues about leaving behind large, toxic messes.
What I am defending is the practice of fracking. There's really been no conclusive evidence that there is anything that makes fracking more enviromentally unfriendly than any other form of oil or gas extraction. Yes, if you are leaving pools of chemicals on the surface that's going to contribute to ground water and enviromental contamination. But banning fracking isn't going to solve the problem, the oil companies do the same stuff when extracting these items in more traditional ways.
The simple fact is right now the US and the world needs energy and renewable means can't provide what we need yet. The fuel has to come from somewhere.
Fracking is one of those things where who is funding the study seems to have a high correlation with what the study finds if I'm not mistaken. Things that are funded (directly or indirectly) through fracking companies have a very different result than those that are truly independent. Here's one such look into the 'independent' funding: http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=2862
Now that doesn't mean that fracking is good or bad, who knows. All it means is I have less faith in the current studies, and any reasonable person should. And personally, if we aren't sure it's safe and reasonable to the environment, then I don't think we should be doing it, but other view points on that matter seem reasonable to me none the less.
Anyways more importantly, that Kickstarter seems pretty bullshit. Middle/lower class is getting screwed by poor policy and a bad (for everyone but the super rich / megacorporations) economy and increasingly uneven wealth distribution. So their complaints are valid, but that's not a reason to support fracking or the gas companies. Basically these people have been screwed over, and some other company will 'save them' while also screwing them or the environment. So forget that, fix the original problem, don't make a bigger mess. Not to mention while you may want to support fracking for helping those people out, they $ amount they're seeing compared to how much the company makes is going to be almost nothing so it's not like the company is doing something altruistic and at best it's only a delay of the economic troubles of those areas (what happens when the company stops fracking there).
Edit: That first woman's argument is bullshit. She assumes either you want to hug trees or your support fracking. People can want something in between ffs. At some point it's reasonable to draw a line and say no more, lets try to find a better way rather than use the fact that we can't be completely environmentally friendly as an excuse to rape the land. Anyone who tries to divide issues like that doesn't deserve to be a part of the discussion; all of her points are unrelated to fracking.
Also the trap not to fall into is assuming that because a side has some inaccuracies, that the side is completely wrong. If we took that stance then SOPA/ACTA would have passed because many anti-SOPA/ACTA people kept mentioning things that had been taken out of the bills. Yet in reality that doesn't diminish the legitimate concerns.
Uh, that documentary looks like total shit. A bunch of testimonials from poor, easily coerced and uninformed elderly with 0 real information as the selling point? Why would anyone support this?
Edit: Holy shit, just looked at the teaser for one of the other films made by these people (Not Evil Just Wrong). One of the highlighted reviews says (without context) that the film “..makes a mockery of the scientific methods practiced by the climate fear-mongers”, and the teaser has Southerners talking about how Al Gore and co. would destroy 7 million jobs. The immediate quote following is "that would bring civilization crashing down to its knees and hundreds of billions of people would die"so they counter 'fearmongering' with other, totally ridiculous fearmongering? And then they fucking emphasize it?
Anyone that gives a dollar to these people hasn't thought it through.
What I don't understand is why the videos got taken down/why they're spreading fear. Is this supposed to be some big conspiracy to get people to use other methods of obtaining oil (even if they're less safe?) That sounds comical. Is it environmental activists taking a drug campaign route where they exaggerate some statistics out of some moral end goal?
What is actually going on? Does BBC often rely on donations to make documentaries? Honestly it just feels like some kind of appeal to hipsters... "I knew fracking was awesome before it was cool!" I would have liked to hear the rebuttal instead of just having him cut off before he made his point. I bet it was something like "yes, people have been lighting their water on fire, but that water is not safe to drink, or yes, they've been doing that, but it's actually more toxic than it used to be and is effecting the environment in a global way besides human's drinking water."
There's just too little information There's only enough to get mad, either at environmental damage, or at dumb people gettin scurred of a little oil in dur waturr.
"about 50% or so of these MSDS sheets lack a specific chemical name, and some MSDS sheets simply claim 'proprietary' status and list none of the chemicals in that container."
Although some of the chemicals pose no known health hazards, some are known carcinogens, some are toxic, some are neurotoxins. For example: benzene (causes cancer, bone marrow failure), lead (damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze, causes death), methanol (highly toxic), boric acid (kidney damage, death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis). Gamma-emitting isotopes (can cause cancer) are also included in the fluid. Some of the isotopes used are Gold-198, Xenon-133, Iodine-131, Rubidium-86, Chromium-51, Iron-59, Antimony-124, Strontium-85, Cobalt-58, Iridium-192, Scandium-46, Zinc-65, Silver-110, Cobalt-57, Cobalt-60, and Krypton-85.[25]
The 2011 US House of Representatives investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing shows that of the 750 compounds in hydraulic fracturing products “[m]ore than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants” (12). The report also shows that between 2005 and 2009 279 products (93.6 million gallons-not including water) had at least one component listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret” on their Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) required Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
Companies are still not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists are incomplete.
"Typically water", yes. It's as if you say cigarettes are "typically tobacco".
The process itself has some merits, the way they are doing it right NOW is awful, as usual with big companies.
Nouar I love how you strategically neglected to mention this quote from that same article:
Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid.
While there is some very nasty stuff in the fracking fluid, including radioactive heavy metals, anti-freeze, boric acid, and methanol; they are extremely diluted. Likely the water on a high traffic road after a short rain fall is going to be more toxic, seeing that the solution would contain much higher concentrations of anti-freeze, motor oil, and fuel.
I also would question how much radioactive contamination, if any, results from fracking. It sounds like they use the isotopes as tracers, and my guess they use them in very small quantities. Some of them, like Iodine131, also have a very short half life. Considering that most natural sources of water already include several PPB of radioactive isotopes; one can't jump to any conclusions about the effects on the environment or people without some solid research.
Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid.
While there is some very nasty stuff in the fracking fluid, including radioactive heavy metals, anti-freeze, boric acid, and methanol; they are extremely diluted. Likely the water on a high traffic road after a short rain fall is going to be more toxic, seeing that the solution would contain much higher concentrations of anti-freeze, motor oil, and fuel.
I also would question how much radioactive contamination, if any, results from fracking. It sounds like they use the isotopes as tracers, and my guess they use them in very small quantities. Some of them, like Iodine131, also have a very short half life. Considering that most natural sources of water already include several PPB of radioactive isotopes; one can't jump to any conclusions about the effects on the environment or people without some solid research.
I know, that's why the cigarette analogy is good, because in fact they ARE mostly tobacco/water, but the rest deserve to be mentioned, too, especially when there are unknown (lol) products. Obviously they won't put plutonium in it, but still.
I was just pointing out the shadowed parts, the 98% water has already been mentioned dozen times in the first two pages. (the other 2% as well, but still :D it was to put a perspective to chill's simplistic post)
Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid.
While there is some very nasty stuff in the fracking fluid, including radioactive heavy metals, anti-freeze, boric acid, and methanol; they are extremely diluted. Likely the water on a high traffic road after a short rain fall is going to be more toxic, seeing that the solution would contain much higher concentrations of anti-freeze, motor oil, and fuel.
I also would question how much radioactive contamination, if any, results from fracking. It sounds like they use the isotopes as tracers, and my guess they use them in very small quantities. Some of them, like Iodine131, also have a very short half life. Considering that most natural sources of water already include several PPB of radioactive isotopes; one can't jump to any conclusions about the effects on the environment or people without some solid research.
What goes in the well is mostly water, what comes back up is water, plus chemicals, plus oil/gas full of emulsifiers and surfactants, the real danger is what happens when wells are not cased properly or if they are abandoned improperly, what goes into the well is not the real problem, this whole argument is a waste of time.
If pumping chemicals into the well was a problem we wouldnt use deep wells for hazardous waste injection. (I don't know if you knew we did that but we do.)
Nasty shit comes back out of the well as part of their production methods, and that is what is in holding ponds and its what people should be concerned with.
Interesting, but too many of you ignore the fact that in the video from 00:00 to 00:12 there is a guy behind them walking on water(just right to the woman's arm). Also cool that LA filmmakers shot their promo on a Polish beach :D, I would donate if I didn't have to pay my energy bills...
My biggest issue is that for many of the companies involved we have no idea what they're pumping in to the ground because it is "proprietary techology". Companies claim that they cant reveal their chemical cocktails for fear of competitors using their formula, but who knows who theyre really hiding that info from.
Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid.
While there is some very nasty stuff in the fracking fluid, including radioactive heavy metals, anti-freeze, boric acid, and methanol; they are extremely diluted. Likely the water on a high traffic road after a short rain fall is going to be more toxic, seeing that the solution would contain much higher concentrations of anti-freeze, motor oil, and fuel.
I also would question how much radioactive contamination, if any, results from fracking. It sounds like they use the isotopes as tracers, and my guess they use them in very small quantities. Some of them, like Iodine131, also have a very short half life. Considering that most natural sources of water already include several PPB of radioactive isotopes; one can't jump to any conclusions about the effects on the environment or people without some solid research.
There's a huge difference between pure, drinkable water, and a 98% water / 2% hazardous chemical solution. It sounds to me like you're overestimating the impact of dilution. Take Lead for example. Safe blood concentrations are on the order of tens of micrograms per deciliter in the blood. To bring one gram of lead in solution down to levels acceptable to the body would require around 10,000 L of water. By mass, that's a 99.99% water solution. I still wouldn't want to drink it. Safe levels in Australia are set below 0.01mg / L, a factor of 10 beyond these rough estimates.
Bottom line: 2% is NOWHERE NEAR safe when you're talking about hazardous chemicals.
On February 29 2012 02:38 TheToast wrote: Nouar I love how you strategically neglected to mention this quote from that same article:
Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid.
While there is some very nasty stuff in the fracking fluid, including radioactive heavy metals, anti-freeze, boric acid, and methanol; they are extremely diluted. Likely the water on a high traffic road after a short rain fall is going to be more toxic, seeing that the solution would contain much higher concentrations of anti-freeze, motor oil, and fuel.
I also would question how much radioactive contamination, if any, results from fracking. It sounds like they use the isotopes as tracers, and my guess they use them in very small quantities. Some of them, like Iodine131, also have a very short half life. Considering that most natural sources of water already include several PPB of radioactive isotopes; one can't jump to any conclusions about the effects on the environment or people without some solid research.
There's a huge difference between pure, drinkable water, and a 98% water / 2% hazardous chemical solution. It sounds to me like you're overestimating the impact of dilution. Take Lead for example. Safe blood concentrations are on the order of tens of micrograms per deciliter in the blood. To bring one gram of lead in solution down to levels acceptable to the body would require around 10,000 L of water. By mass, that's a 99.99% water solution. I still wouldn't want to drink it. Safe levels in Australia are set below 0.01mg / L, a factor of 10 beyond these rough estimates.
Bottom line: 2% is NOWHERE NEAR safe when you're talking about hazardous chemicals.
edit: math
I'm not advotating drinking the stuff.
But it's not ultra toxic dangerous wase either. If in some instance heavy rains were to flush a bunch of this stuff into a river, it's unlikely that it is going to create an kind of long term ecological disaster. If some of it does leak into the ground water, it's unlikely that it is going to severaly contaminate the aquifer. As I said, the rain water washing off of a heavily used road is likely going to be more toxic. However, if this stuff were to be allowed to regularly leak into the ground water over a large period of time, it certainly could certainly drastically contaminate an area or ground water aquifer. But any industry presents this kind of a risk. It's up to these companies to ensure they are following EPA standards and it is up to the government to punish them if they are not.
The idea that fracking is some kind of ultra enviroment destroying practice is just silly though.
If you've ever been to the oil patch in northern Alberta (not fort mac, but around the Grande Prairie area) you'd soon realize that fracking does not deserve the hate that it's getting. There are many more harmful methods that should be dealt with, but are completely out of the public's eye. On that note, people in Brazil are still using mercury to float gold...
Fracking should be treated carefully and environmental and safety regulations should be strictly followed. If all that is said and done, it should be a very viable process to extract a cleaner energy source than coal or oil. It shouldn't be shot down like this.
Now even movie stars are rising against Fracking. The problem is that they don't frame the question in a positive human perspective, and after they denounce it they provide no positive alternative that can replace the energy we would have made available for us.
This guy, Alex Epstein, wants to give a free seminar on fracking to any movie star so that they can start spreading a positive message.
EPT
There's only enough to get mad, either at environmental damage, or at dumb people gettin scurred of a little oil in dur waturr.
