+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Fracking And Related Stuff

  1. Link to Post #1
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Fracking And Related Stuff

    Fracking - you are not important

    Paul Mobbs
    24th June 2014

    Why does the fracking lobby refuse to engage in open, public debate? Because, writes Paul Mobbs, it has already got its way, with the uncritical support of all the 'mainstream' media and political parties. You and I simply do not matter. So what are we going to do about that?


    Anne Power surrounded by police at an anti-fracking protest at Barton Moss, December 2013. Photo: Steven Speed / SalfordStar.com.
    Quote The fracking agenda in Britain is forging ahead because - in the corridors of power - no one 'officially' sees, hears or speaks anything to the contrary.
    You are not important!
    I'm sorry if that's an unwelcome reality, but if we look at some recent developments in the battle over fracking in Britain (and/or the USA, Canada, Poland, South Africa, Australia, etc.) we can conclude little else.

    In mid-June I took part in a UK-wide series of events entitled, 'We Need to Talk About Fracking'.

    Given shape by Vivienne Westwood and Joe Corre, and supported by a variety of well-known people from Paul McCartney to Russell Brand, the idea was simple: organise a series of public debates between the "pro" and 'anti' side of the argument, and let the listening public make up their own minds.

    The final and biggest event, at the Central Methodist Hall in Westminster, was even to be chaired by Channel 4 News' Jon Snow.

    Difficulty was, the 'pro' side of the argument chose not to show up!

    But then, why should they?
    Organisations promoting unconventional fossil fuels, the companies drilling the holes, and the politicians who support them were all invited. And while they made noises about participating to the event organisers, in the end they chose not to turn up for a debate.

    Consequently the tour of Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Swansea and London was no longer the anticipated 'debate'. Instead it had to be a panel discussion which, for the most part, was against the industry.

    If fracking's supporters did not want to put their side of the argument in public, that's not our fault - we carried on without them.

    Of course, the big unstated issue here is - "why should they turn up?"

    Let's examine this from their point of view. If:

    then you don't need to turn up for public debates. You can say what you like because, in the controlled conditions under which they will appear, no one would ever challenge what they say.

    In short - the public's concerns don't matter; and that means that your concerns do not matter!

    They don't have to defend themselves, to get their way
    Irrespective of any evidence which might exist to the contrary about the safety of fracking, they will never have to defend themselves because their economic and political clout mean they don't have to.

    Therefore the fracking agenda in Britain is forging ahead because - in the corridors of power - no one 'officially' sees, hears or speaks anything to the contrary.

    As an example, look at what happened in Parliament the other day. Energy and Business Minister Michael Fallon - one of those invited to the 'talk fracking' debates - stood up to answer a question in the House of Commons and stated:
    "There are no examples from the United States of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the fracturing takes place very much deeper than any groundwater levels."
    An outright lie - but who cares?
    Michael Fallon has misled Parliament. And for that, he should lose his job. But there is nothing the public can do about that unless a group of MPs are willing to press the issue.

    And right now, all the parties in Parliament except the Greens are either supportive or non-committal on the fracking issue.

    In fact there is now a lot of independent, peer-reviewed scientific information which flatly contradicts Government and industry assertions that "fracking is safe".

    Whether its on the issue of fracking and public health, or fracking and climate change, recent developments are making the opposite case:
    • In Australia, the New South Wales Government recently suspended all oil and gas licences pending a review of their environmental and health impacts.
    • In Canada, the Council of Canadian Academies recently stated that the process is fraught with many scientific and technical uncertainties, and should not be rolled-out until the impacts can be properly studied.
    • Also in Australia, last year the Australian Medical Association passed a motion objecting to the further expansion of unconventional gas operation without detailed environmental and health impacts being undertaken to demonstrate the safety of the process.
    • Even the British Medical Journal recently carried an article critical of the Government's policy agenda around unconventional fossil fuels.
    • Finally, just a few days ago, employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Health blew the whistle on the official cover-up of the health impacts of drilling in the Marcellus shale.

    Supine Parliament, corporate media

    Despite this, the Government's hollow arguments are not going to be challenged in Parliament.

    In fact one of the few public bodies which might, by now, have carried out an independent scientific review of the evidence - the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution - was (disgracefully!) abolished within the first year of the coalition Government coming to power.

    The trouble is that the 'Fourth Estate' - the mainstream media - are also doing a damn poor job of evaluating and critically presenting the Government's arguments. This is something which the public raised during the 'talk fracking' events around Britain.

    Many politicians have made statements on this issue which can be shown to be inaccurate, or flat wrong. At the same time we've seen the Government issue 'dodgy dossier'-style reports, making claims which cannot be proven, which justify their policies by getting experts to make questionable claims about the technology.

    It's an open goal - why aren't the media on the ball?

    What next?
    We can talk about about our declining democracy. We can talk about corporate power or the manipulation of the media.

    But in the final analysis what this mean is that, in their eyes, you are not important to the prosecution of their greater political project. And if they can do this for something as awful as fracking, what else is on their agenda?

    Now, what are you going to do about that?


    Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer. He runs the Free Range Activism website.

    More articles by Paul Mobbs on The Ecologist.

    A fully referenced version of this article can be found at - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2...important.html.


    © mariamuir.com
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alecs (7th November 2019), avid (30th June 2014), Cidersomerset (30th June 2014), Daughter of Time (25th May 2015), genevieve (30th June 2014), Limor Wolf (1st July 2014), meeradas (20th May 2015), raregem (30th June 2014), Realeyes (30th June 2014), Spiral (4th February 2018), Xanth (30th June 2014)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    The Void - Omniverses & Earth
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    11,170
    Thanked 6,322 times in 735 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Thanks Amzer Zo for this thread.

    I actually wrote to my MP with my concerns on fracking; technically she is mean to reply back to me - 4 weeks on and not a dicky bird of a tweet from her, so it tells me she doesn't intend to write back because it is a done deal already, ignoring that 75% of the UK nation is against this. Oh but she cared enough (not) to pass my email address on to a sales agency so I am now recieving daily advert emails now telling me I can hire a plane or a boat..... Yeah it stinks.

    'fracking' is just a cunning way of saying they are f*cking the country's land with zero care whatsoever for the life that lives on the land - profit is far more important.

    Everything is just so blatant now.

    On a side note, I have been pondering what will happen with all this 'fracking' when it starts to flood underground bases/caves etc of the 'non-human' civilisations that dwell there? Perhaps the ptw are no longer content in just warring on the surface and this fracking is more about 'flushing' something else out?

  4. Link to Post #3
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Not sure if they are waging a war on underground bases or securing a monopoly on potable water production and distribution... "they" sure got Libya out of that business!

    ... anyone heard of "fracking" on Bushe's properties in South America?
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (30th June 2014), DNA (18th March 2018), raregem (30th June 2014), Realeyes (30th June 2014)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    The Void - Omniverses & Earth
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    11,170
    Thanked 6,322 times in 735 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
    ... anyone heard of "fracking" on Bushe's properties in South America?
    I think all MP's should endorse their policies first on their own land and on themselves and see how the shoe fits......

    Slight tongue in cheek yet put a smile on my face when I saw this.

    Quote Anti-fracking campaigners staged a protest outside the Oxfordshire home of Prime Minister David Cameron on June 4, 2014.

  7. Link to Post #5
    Great Britain Avalon Member Xanth's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th June 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 367 times in 70 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    I guess the question remains as Mr Mobbs puts it "What are you going to do about that?".
    One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the political elite expect the gap between what the people want and what government gives them to get wider and more obvious. Leading to social unrest, here in the uk that leads to water cannons being purchased in London, in the US where you've effectively an armed population, its the militarisation of the Police and standoffs like the Bundy Ranch.

    I'd love to hear if anyone has suggestions for more positive action and outcomes ...

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Xanth For This Post:

    avid (30th June 2014), DNA (18th March 2018), Hervé (30th June 2014), Limor Wolf (1st July 2014), Realeyes (30th June 2014)

  9. Link to Post #6
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    California aquifers contaminated with billions of gallons of fracking wastewater

    Published time: October 09, 2014 17:35
    Get short URL


    California, United States (Reuters / Lucy Nicholson)

    ​Industry illegally injected about 3 billion gallons of fracking wastewater into central California drinking-water and farm-irrigation aquifers, the state found after the US Environmental Protection Agency ordered a review of possible contamination.

    According to documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity, the California State Water Resources Board found that at least nine of the 11 hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, wastewater injection sites that were shut down in July upon suspicion of contamination were in fact riddled with toxic fluids used to unleash energy reserves deep underground. The aquifers, protected by state law and the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, supply quality water in a state currently suffering unprecedented drought.

    The documents also show that the Central Valley Water Board found high levels of toxic chemicals - including arsenic, thallium, and nitrates - in water-supply wells near the wastewater-disposal sites.

    Arsenic is a carcinogen that weakens the immune system, and thallium is a common component in rat poison.

    “Arsenic and thallium are extremely dangerous chemicals,” said Timothy Krantz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Redlands, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

    “The fact that high concentrations are showing up in multiple water wells close to wastewater injection sites raises major concerns about the health and safety of nearby residents.”

    The Center for Biological Diversity obtained a letter from the state Water Board to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that said the Central Valley Regional Water Board discovered the health violations. Following the July suspension of the 11 injection sites, the EPA ordered a review of aquifers in the area to be completed within 60 days.

    The state Water Board also said that 19 more injection wells may have also contaminated sensitive, protected aquifers, while dozens more wells have been the source of wastewater dumped into aquifers of unknown quality.

    Despite these damning findings, the extent of wastewater pollution is still undetermined, as the Central Valley Water Board has thus far only tested eight water wells of the more than 100 in the area, according to the documents. Half of those tested came up positive for containing an excessive amount of toxic chemicals.

    To unleash oil or natural gas, fracking requires blasting large volumes of highly pressurized water, sand, and other chemicals into layers of rock. The contents of fracking fluid include chemicals that the energy industry and many government officials will not name, yet they insist the chemicals do not endanger human health, contradicting findings by scientists and environmentalists. Toxic fracking wastewater is then either stored in deep underground wells, disposed of in open pits for evaporation, sprayed into waste fields, or used over again.

    Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination, an uptick in earthquakes, exacerbation of drought conditions and a host of health concerns for humans and the local environment.

    A recent study by the US Drought Monitor noted that 58 percent of California is experiencing “exceptional drought,” which is the most serious category on the agency’s five-level scale. Meanwhile, a fracking job can require as much as 140,000 to 150,000 gallons of water per day, water that then cannot be consumed or used in farming operations.

    The Center for Biological Diversity noted that the contamination of water sources could be much worse in another regard, as flowback water that comes from oil wells in the state can contain levels of benzene, toluene, and other toxic chemicals that are hundreds of times higher than legally allowed. Flowback fluid is then released back into wastewater storage wells. Chemicals like benzene can take years to eventually find their way to water sources.

    “Clean water is one of California’s most crucial resources, and these documents make it clear that state regulators have utterly failed to protect our water from oil industry pollution,” said Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

    “Much more testing is needed to gauge the full extent of water pollution and the threat to public health. But Governor [Jerry] Brown should move quickly to halt fracking to ward off a surge in oil industry wastewater that California simply isn’t prepared to dispose of safely.”
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Daughter of Time (25th May 2015), DNA (18th March 2018)

  11. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    15th August 2014
    Posts
    280
    Thanks
    310
    Thanked 760 times in 233 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    The EPA is allowing oil, fracking chemicals to be dumped into Gulf of Mexico


    Concerns loom over offshore fracking's extent, oversight

    "A year after California imposed new regulations requiring oil and gas companies to notify state regulators and the public whenever they perform hydraulic fracturing, environmental groups and policy experts are suddenly and belatedly learning about offshore fracking in the Gulf and expressing frustration with a lack of information from regulators.

    "People don't know this is happening," said Jonathan Henderson of the environmental advocacy group Gulf Restoration Network. "Nobody I talk to has any idea, much less the process that's used to get at those reserves."

    ..."Environmental Protection Agency water discharge permits allow operators to dump a certain amount of oil and chemicals overboard into the Gulf along with their processed water. But those permits and lists of the chemicals used for individual frac jobs are only available publicly for land-based operations, not the offshore ones.

    Both the EPA and an industry-backed website called FracFocus offer searchable online databases of permits for fracking on shore, but not for the Gulf of Mexico. A year after California imposed new regulations requiring oil and gas companies to notify state regulators and the public whenever they perform hydraulic fracturing, environmental groups and policy experts are suddenly and belatedly learning about offshore fracking in the Gulf and expressing frustration with a lack of information from regulators."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...erns/18233029/


    And there are still people who think we have a "government of the people" -- !!

    All of government and its agencies have been corrupted.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Curious77 For This Post:

    DNA (18th March 2018)

  13. Link to Post #8
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Shock: Fracking Used to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades

    Thursday, March 5, 2015
    Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton, Activist Post


    Unearthed articles from the 1960s detail how nuclear waste was buried beneath the Earth’s surface by Halliburton & Co. for decades as a means of disposing the by-products of post-World War II atomic energy production.

    Fracking is already a controversial practice on its face; allowing U.S. industries to inject slurries of toxic, potentially carcinogenic compounds deep beneath the planet’s surface — as a means of “see no evil” waste disposal — already sounds ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid anyway without even going into further detail.

    Alleged fracking links to the contamination of the public water supply and critical aquifers, as well as ties to earthquake upticks near drilling locations that are otherwise not prone to seismic activity have created uproar in the years since the 2005 “Cheney loophole,” which allowed the industry to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting fracking fluids, thus fast tracking shale fracking as a source of cheap natural gas.

    Now, it is apparent that the fracking industry is also privy to many secrets of the nuclear energy industry and, specifically, where the bodies are buried, err… dangerous nuclear waste is buried, rather — waste that atomic researchers have otherwise found so difficult to eliminate.

    TruthstreamMedia.com uncovered several published newspaper accounts from the Spring of 1964 concerning a then-newly disclosed plan to dump nuclear waste produced by the atomic energy industry into hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wells using a cement slurry technique developed by Halliburton & Co. The top two fracking companies in the nation at the time were Halliburton and Dowell, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

    And here we thought fracking was a relatively new industrial phenomenon growing in popularity over just the last couple of decades. Boy were we wrong. Revealed within these articles is Halliburton’s long-standing relationship with the secret government and deep ties between the oil and nuclear industries.

    Teaming up with the U.S. Government and Union Carbide Corp., who operate nuclear materials divisions at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, Halliburton was then credited with “solving” the radioactive waste problem faced by America’s secretive nuclear industry. Dumping waste via fracking had apparently been going on since 1960, according to the reports, but was only made public here in 1964.

    Out of Sight, Out of Mind
    Each of the articles Truthstream found carries the same account under different headlines, with four of them using identical copy; and the fifth, published in the San Antonio Express, slightly rewritten based upon the same source information. The photo captions of each story also add some useful tidbits:


    May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News. Click for larger image view.

    These ran in the:

    April 19, 1964 edition of the Great Bend Tribune,

    the April 22, 1964 edition of the Warren Times-Mirror,

    the April 26, 1964 edition of the Lubbock Avalanche Journal,

    the May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News (original)

    and the June 15, 1964 edition of the Denton Record Chronicle.

    The story read, in part:

    Quote Two techniques originated by the petroleum industry for its own uses are expected to solve a major problem in the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The problem is the disposal of dangerous, sometimes deadly, radioactive waste by-products.

    Researchers at Halliburton Co’s. Technical Center here working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists, have combined the oil well cementing technique with the hydraulic fracturing production stimulation technique to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.

    The method used at Oak Ridge begins by mixing the waste with a cement slurry, pumping the mixture down a hole drilled into the Conasuaga shale and then fracturing the shale to create a horizontal crack. The crack fills with the mixture to form a thin, horizontal sheet several hundred feet across. The mix sets to permanently hold the radioactive waste in the formation.

    Union Carbide Corp., which operates facilities at Oak Ridge for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Halliburton, which provides specialized oil field services such as cementing fracturing worldwide, have collaborated on the project since 1960.

    The mix remained liquid for 48 hours before it was supposed to permanently set and remain there, entombed, forever.
    The articles make clear that the Atomic Energy Commission was preparing to use fracking as a means of disposing of nuclear wastes at additional facilities, with Oak Ridge being simply one of the largest, and the first to publicly disclose these out-of-sight disposal procedures:

    Quote Oak Ridge has a radioactive waste disposal problem typical of the nation’s nuclear sites. Each year about four million gallons of waste, including such fission products as strontium 90, cesium 137 and ruthenium 103, are generated at Oak Ridge.

    Among the disposal methods already tried have been dumping concrete-encased barrels of waste in the ocean or burying the waste in lead-lined containers. These are considered either too dangerous or too expensive or both.
    Unfortunately, the ocean has been used as a giant trashcan not only by the nuclear industry, but municipal garbage and landfill companies and many other entities as well, without any real concern about its significant effects on the food supply and larger ecosystem of the planet.

    Quote If this process is successful for disposal of Oak Ridge National Laboratory intermediate-level wastes, it has potential application at other atomic energy sites where suitable geological conditions exist,” the Atomic Energy Commission says.
    The slightly different version in the San Antonio Express News added these details:

    Quote A couple of techniques used by oilmen when they have hopes of production may soon be used by the Atomic Energy Commission for – of all things – radioactive garbage disposal.

    Final tests are now under way at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, in trying a combination of oil well cementing plus hydraulic fracturing to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.


    Meanwhile, the Great Bend Tribune added information about the Halliburton executives involved in the plan in their caption for a photo which shows businessmen looking at a diagram explaining how nuclear waste like strontium 90 is mixed with cement and injected into shale formations:

    Quote Halliburton engineer Mack Stogner, left, reviews the project with Harry P. Conroy, senior vice president and general manager of the oil field service firm, and W.D. Owsley, senior vice president.
    The process includes remote controlled operation of the hydraulic fracturing drill in order to shield workers from the “medium level” radioactive substances being dumped into the Earth’s crust, as the Warren Times Mirror in Pennsylvania notes in the caption:

    Quote Disposing of Waste – Working behind shielding and wearing film badges, Halliburton Company personnel use demounted oil field service units to dispose of radioactive waste generated at the Oak Ridge, Tenn. nuclear site.
    How often this procedure has been used at other facilities since then is not entirely clear, though we know from reports discussed below that the practice continued and there is no indication that it ever stopped.

    Five years later, the October 22, 1969 edition of the San Bernardino County Sun carried a report titled, “3 Ways to Manage Radioactive Waste.”

    It discussed the ongoing and growing problems with nuclear waste, naming three principle strategies for managing the toxic stuff, summed up as “(1) delay and decay, (2) concentrate and confine and (3) dilute and disperse,” discussing how materials with lower half lives can supposedly be safely sequestered and later dumped, while other materials can be simply diluted and poured into existing groundwater supplies and systems.

    The UPI story originating out of Oak Ridge states, in part,

    Quote Since the start of the atomic era in the 1940s, nuclear reactors around the nation have produced 75 million gallons of hazardous high level radioactive waste materials.

    And scientists here and elsewhere around the nation still are wrestling with the problems of what to do with this material, which promises to become even more plentiful as more and more commercial nuclear reactors go into power production.
    Oak Ridge proclaims that it found a solution to dealing with high level nuclear wastes, which has thus far been to keep it,

    Quote …buried a few feet underground in storage tanks – tanks which must be periodically replaced because of the natural deterioration of the steel and other materials of which they are fabricated.

    It is in this area of confining the high level wastes, whose radioactive half life ranges up to 30 to 50 years, that the Atomic Energy Commission is pushing dramatic new concepts.

    One disposal system, involving materials in the medium range of radioactivity, is the hydraulic fracturing procedures. This system is now being used at Oak Ridge and involves mixing the liquid radioactive waste with concrete to form a grout which is pumped into shale formations 500 to 800 feet underground.
    Note, this article cites a shallower depth, at levels as shallow as 500 feet, after the 1964 articles claimed a further removed depth of 1,000 feet to 5,000. The even “higher level wastes” were disposed of in abandoned salt mines, according to Oak Ridge.

    Nuclear Waste ‘Safely Flushed Away’ into the Water Supply
    The 1969 article states that “low level waste” is “material which can safely be flushed away into rivers and lakes or released into the atmosphere because the level of radioactivity is so low that is presents no hazard when diluted and flushed into man’s natural environment. The more difficult problem is involved in the high level, liquid and solid wastes which are produced in the reprocessing of used fuel elements from nuclear reactor cores.”

    The idea that the waste dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and propagandist, Edward Bernays.

    In his book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:

    Quote The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr. Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.
    More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels. AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some cases hundreds of times over.

    Fracking Nuclear Waste ‘Safe for Millions of Years’… Unless It Leaks
    Some 30 trillion gallons of toxic waste has been kept out of sight, out of mind by U.S. industries that have injected it hundreds and thousands of feet underground into wells since the 1960s.

    Scientists who work for these corporations have used computer modeling to assure the Environmental Protection Agency that this waste poses no threat to our aquifers and that layers of rock deep within the Earth would safely store this stuff like Tupperware for millennia.

    Already, several incidents have proven that scientific computer models are no match for reality.

    It is clear from a December 21, 1973 article that disposal of nuclear waste via fracking continued, along with promises that it would be safe for millions of years to come.

    The Dixon Evening Telegraph wrote in “Geologists look at energy crunch”:

    Quote The U.S. Government is disposing of approximately 250,000 gallons of intermediate-level wastes each year using a technique called hydraulic fracturing. Liquids are pumped into impervious shales 1,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface. High pressure is applied causing the rocks to fracture and the liquid moves out laterally. Because the rock and radioactive wastes it contains will not be exposed to the biosphere for millions of years, this method should be safe unless leakage into an overlying aquifer occurs.
    That is, as the article points out, unless there are leaks.

    As we found in research, leakage is exactly what has happened time and again throughout the years, including at disposal sites for Oak Ridge National Laboratories, according to reports in the following cases. Via ProPublica:

    Quote In April, 1967 pesticide waste injected by a chemical plant at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal destabilized a seismic fault, causing a magnitude 5.0 earthquake — strong enough to shatter windows and close schools — and jolting scientists with newfound risks of injection, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    A year later, a corroded hazardous waste well for pulping liquor at the Hammermill Paper Co., in Erie, Pa., ruptured. Five miles away, according to an EPA report, “a noxious black liquid seeped from an abandoned gas well” in Presque Isle State Park.

    In 1975 in Beaumont, Texas, dioxin and a highly acidic herbicide injected underground by the Velsicol Chemical Corp. burned a hole through its well casing, sending as much as five million gallons of the waste into a nearby drinking water aquifer.
    And these are hardly the only examples… in fact, it is just scratching the surface of an issue that is almost as incomprehensible as it is unfathomable.

    Quote Then in August 1984 in Oak Ridge, Tenn., radioactive waste was turned up by water monitoring near a deep injection well at a government nuclear facility.
    Bingo…

    There it is. The infallible, permanent, and “impermeable” deep injection wells that Halliburton and the Atomic Energy Commission considered as a solution to nuclear waste for eons to come were found turning up radioactive nuclear waste at the very Oak Ridge site where these 1960s disposal projects were taking place.

    Subterranean Waste Disposal a ‘Cornerstone of the Nation’s Economy’
    Those cemented wells, filled with injected disposal substances may be safely secured for a few years or even decades, but that is no guarantee for the years down the road and its certainly not the millennia as promised by Halliburton and others in the industry. In fact, many of the wells have been forgotten, abandoned, and are lost to the record books.

    As ProPublica reports:

    Quote There are upwards of 2 million abandoned and plugged oil and gas wells in the U.S., more than 100,000 of which may not appear in regulators’ records. Sometimes they are just broken off tubes of steel, buried or sticking out of the ground. Many are supposed to be sealed shut with cement, but studies show that cement breaks down over time, allowing seepage up the well structure.
    And many of these are injection wells, where all kinds of unwanted, toxic substances are dumped in order to be forgotten… though not necessarily gone.

    Not only are these practices taking place, they are widespread… and widely defended, even with the known failures and safety issues.

    Quote Many scientists and regulators say the alternatives to the injection process — burning waste, treating wastewater, recycling, or disposing of waste on the surface — are far more expensive or bring additional environmental risks.

    Subterranean waste disposal, they point out, is a cornerstone of the nation’s economy, relied on by the pharmaceutical, agricultural and chemical industries. It’s also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, “clean coal” technologies, nuclear fuel production and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth’s surface. (source)
    Sure, maybe it’s better than dumping it directly into the waterways, but still. This isn’t just playing with fire, this is playing with the lives of everyone in the nation for generations to come.

    Please read ProPublica’s full series of reports on this, starting here. Things have to change.

    These people should not have started messing with something they did not know how to fully and safely manage.

    How long can this madness continue until it winds up tainting every drinking glass in America?

    Engineer Mario Salazar, who worked as a technical expert for 25 years with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington, told ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten something that should give us all pause about how radioactive nuclear waste and industrial pollutants in general are being handled, and where they may ultimately end up:
    In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted. A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.
    Aaron and Melissa created TruthstreamMedia.com, where this article first appeared, as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Daughter of Time (25th May 2015), DNA (18th March 2018), Jean-Marie (7th March 2015), onawah (7th March 2015), Selkie (7th March 2015), Spiral (4th February 2018)

  15. Link to Post #9
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Nebraska Farmer Makes Room Full Of Fracking Supporters Go Silent With Just A Glass Of Water (VIDEO)

    Author: Jameson Parker March 28, 2015 2:56 pm

    Sometimes all the talk in the world can’t prepare you for cold, hard reality. At a Nebraska Oil & Gas Conservation committee hearing, a room full of fracking supporters were left in utter silence when a farmer brought in three cups of fracking water and offered each of them to take a sip.

    It’s a brilliant visual reminder that what’s at stake when we talk about the dangers of fracking isn’t dollars and cents, but something much simpler: Security in knowing that one of the most basic necessities of life, access to clean drinking water, is safe from harmful pollutants.

    Nebraskan James Osborne appeared at the hearing to discuss an oil company’s application to ship out-of-state fracking wastewater into Nebraska to be dumped into a “disposal well” in Sioux County. According to a Fox Business report on the proposal, the waste would be coming from states like Wyoming and Colorado, but dumped in Nebraska because nobody else wants anything to do with it:
    Quote The commission heard 2½ hours of public comment Tuesday at its Sidney headquarters before convening a specific hearing on the proposal from Terex Energy Corp. The Broomfield, Colorado-based company wants to truck salty groundwater and chemical-laden fracking wastewater that result from oil searches and production in Wyoming, Colorado and, eventually, Nebraska, to a ranch north of Mitchell, Nebraska. As much as 10,000 barrels a day of the water would be injected into an old oil well on the ranch.
    Lest people think Osborne is a bleeding heart tree-hugger, he notes that he’s worked in the oil industry and still even has family who work in fracking. However, his background can’t stand in the way of the troubling facts about what fracking does to the environment, particularly to a farming and livestock intensive state like Nebraska which relies heavily on its water reserves to function.

    On a table, Osborne sets down three water cups, filling each with some purified water. There is no question that anyone would feel comfortable drinking that water. But in the event of fracking wastewater leaking into the streams and rivers of Nebraska, residents shouldn’t expect their taps to remain safe. Instead, Osborne dumps in the kind of yellow-brown sludge common in fracking runoff water. This is what the water would look like. The audience gasps.

    “So you told me this morning that you would drink this water,” Osborne tells the commission. “So would you drink it? Yes or no?”

    The group stares silently at the display. After an awkward pause, one says he won’t answer any questions.

    “Oh, you can’t answer any questions? Well my answer would be no. I don’t want this in the water that will travel entirely across this state in three days,” Osborne says. “There is no doubt there will be contamination. There will be spills.”

    So far the commission hasn’t made a ruling on the controversial proposal. They chose to delay a ruling to think it over more carefully. In the meantime, environmental group Bold Nebraska has launched a petition to get public support against the fracking dumpsite.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (25th May 2015), Daughter of Time (25th May 2015), DNA (18th March 2018), meeradas (20th May 2015), Spiral (4th February 2018)

  17. Link to Post #10
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,037 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Anyone heard of this:

    Bloomberg News is now reporting e-mails that reveal how Oklahoma billionaire Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources, attempted to have researchers who were studying ties between fracking and earthquakes removed from their jobs. Bloomberg obtained emails, using a public records request, which led to this report:
    Quote "Mr. Hamm is very upset at some of the earthquake reporting to the point that he would like to see select OGS staff dismissed," wrote Larry Grillot, the dean of the university's Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, in a July 16, 2014, e-mail to colleagues at the university. Hamm also expressed an interest in joining a search committee charged with finding a new director for the geological survey, according to Grillot's e-mail."

    Harold Hamm 2012
    (image by david_shankbone) License DMCA


    This is one example of how a billionaire attempts to influence scientific research. It is reasonable to assume that Hamm, was so ham-handed in his predations upon the light of truth, that he got sloppy or was not smart and charismatic enough to make his intentions become reality. He spent $20 million supporting diabetes research at the university of Oklahoma. This is how it works. Give a ****load of money to one part of the university and then ask for changes elsewhere. I believe that there are hundreds of billionaires doing things like this. Most do not get caught.


    Excerpt taken from: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Whe...50518-997.html


    The way it works...

    Last edited by Hervé; 18th May 2015 at 20:45.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (25th May 2015), Bob (18th May 2015), Daughter of Time (25th May 2015), DNA (18th March 2018), norman (23rd November 2016), panopticon (19th May 2015)

  19. Link to Post #11
    UK Avalon Member beewarenow's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd September 2014
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 22 times in 7 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Frontline of Fracking in UK is Lancashire as we await decision on Cuadrilla applications from Lancashire County Council on June 23,24,25 and 26, 2015. For those in UK who would like to come and show your support there will be a gathering outside Preston County Hall at 9am on June 23 and below I've taken info from an event post on FB.
    From Tues 23rd to Fri 26th June, Lancashire County Council will be deciding on whether or not to approve two of the biggest fracking tests ever contemplated in the UK. If allowed to happen, each site would have 4 horizontal wells, producing tens of millions of gallons and radioactive and toxic waste and opening the door to thousands more wells to be drilled across Lancashire, and the rest of the UK.

    On the first day (and on subsequent days), concerned communities from around the UK will descend upon Lancashire County Hall in Preston for a peaceful show of solidarity and resistance. This is a huge deal that has implications for the entirety of the UK. It's also a great chance to showcase the strength and solidarity of the of the UK anti-fracking movement by standing with the people of Lancashire!

    If you live in the 60% of the UK that has been made available to fracking companies, this is also your chance to highlight the threat to your community and the resistance taking place where you live! Get involved and come to Lancashire, if you can! If you can just come for one day the first one is likely to be the most important in setting the tone for the days that follow.

    FRACK FREE EVERYWHERE!

    LOCATION :
    County Hall, Preston, Lancashire PR1 8RL

    WHAT TO BRING:

    ** BANNERS/SIGNAGE representing your community and the extreme energy development your group is resisting
    ** WARM/WATERPROOF clothes
    ** Food & Water

    Try to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, anything which could be construed as a weapon (glass etc.).

    LETS MAKE THIS BIG!

    COACHES FROM ACROSS THE UK

    Also there is an action camp this coming weekend at Didcot in Oxfordshire, more info on http://www.nodashforgas.org.uk/

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to beewarenow For This Post:

    avid (25th May 2015), DNA (18th March 2018), Hervé (25th May 2015)

  21. Link to Post #12
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Hi,
    as I predicted, we are going to see evidence for the fracking process as a WASTE DISPOSAL technique.
    The more noxious the waste, the more money to be made by dumping it.
    I would speculate that this secret sub-industry is a large part of the US fracking industry's profits. Why are they so secretive about the contents of 'Fracking Water'
    Why is there no testing and accountability?

    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/0...d-for-decades/

    God Bless

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    DNA (18th March 2018), Hervé (28th June 2015)

  23. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,776 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Fracking Nightmare - Episode 98






    Published on Nov 22, 2016
    Jon & Val Mager discuss the role of the 'Geri-Activists' (Senior Citzens) who helped make Crawberry Hill (East Yorks), the most successful anti-fracking campaign in the UK to date. For many of those involved, it has provided a new lease of life. The Geri-Activists may hold the KEY to shutting down the UK Unconventional Gas agenda! A CAUSE you can BELIEVE in!
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    DNA (18th March 2018), Ewan (23rd November 2016)

  25. Link to Post #14
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    I am going to point out something, some insider information that I believe is behind the "frac'ing" sensationalism. I think it is important to understand what is happening technically, emotionally and most likely taking a close look at the 'monster' behind the drama...

    I hope one will take the time to read and follow this post; I feel possibly one would get some understanding about the differences, the significances, of what is happening environmentally in the geological "industry" of hydrocarbon recovery (oil and gas, and natural gas liquids) and what is motivating (most likely) 'industry' to do what they do.

    I will try to keep the post as non-technical as possible (minimal amount of 'geek-speak') but cover the essential points.

    I believe strongly that the "frac'ing" issue was started BY the oil industry, the majors specifically. A 'major' is a multi-national oil company, trans-national, humongous in size. A 'major' really doesn't care about the environment unless pushed, is my belief. On the other hand, numerous small oil companies exist, starting with the ma and pa group who understands that they may have oil or natural gas on their property and could very well supplement the income. That's the full range. Ma and Pa's will be very cognizant to the dangers of contamination in the environment, especially the water-table which they use for irrigation of their crops for instance.

    Why would the 'major's' create a 'frac'ing sensationalism' - the reason in the industry is inside information - most oil and gas wells when they are producing hydrocarbon products have what is called "associated water".. In some cases 10 times more water than any hydrocarbon comes out. That 'produced water' is not 'drinking water', but salt water, from the ancient seas which were covered up over the eons with the organic sediments which eventually became oil or natural gas.

    And there are other contaminants which exist in that 'associated water', radioactive uranium salts, vanadium metal, iron, all sorts of mineral salts from the rock, all sorts of organic acids such as formic, acetic, propionic, and butyric acids, naphthenic acids, and dissolved aromatic compounds like benzene, toluene, and xylenes. (http://petrowiki.org/Produced_oilfield_water)

    That "associated water" is a toxic nightmare. And it has to be disposed of. Historically, produced water was disposed of in large evaporation ponds.

    In some cases, associated produced water was just dumped into streams, or allowed to spill onto the surface. Others dumped it into the ocean if they were close enough. Putting such toxins into surface streams means drinking water contamination is a high likelihood. Eventually people caught on that contaminating water, surface water is not a good thing.

    The idea of "injection" of the associated produced water back down INTO the earth was the concept agreed upon by the industry.

    When one injects under pressure deep into the earth such FRACTURES the rocks into where the well disposes. That terminology, of hydraulic fracturing has been loosely coined "fracking, or frac'ing".

    That is the origin of the name.

    A lay person will not understand though what or why "fracturing" or frac'ing would be worrisome.

    Who pays any attention to the science of how any well drilled into the ground is accomplished? Who educates people who are going to protest, exactly what the technical issues are behind wells of any kind? I seriously doubt that happens, but people can be emotionally moved when they are told that their water is contaminated by 'greedy industry'. Don't you think? Emotional buttons triggered without any explanation of what is happening, or why it is happening?

    I believe that the 'major's' in the hydrocarbon industry don't want people to focus on where the actual DAMAGE is happening, where it is originating, what the source is for contamination. I believe they don't want people to understand the source because it would cost them BILLIONS to correct the reasons for the damage..

    History - Most every well ever drilled from the start over 100 years ago has been "fractured" to some extent where the production zones at many feet, sometimes thousands of feet below the water table.. Fracturing allows the pores to be exposed where hydrocarbon resides to be able to be extracted up a totally externally sealed column (piping system) and brought to the surface, collected, produced water separated out, and then shipped for refining. Nobody worried, nobody was complaining about "contamination" back then. It was a non-issue.

    Some rocks that contain hydrocarbons have very small pores, and that requires that the production zones deep down, 5000-18,000 feet below the surface water table be "fractured". Those fractures then expand about 15-30 feet surrounding the production pipe, at those depths of 5000-18,000 feet below the surface water table. Usually only ONE ZONE would be fractured, usually the bottom-most zone first until it is exhausted of production, then if the well still holds promise of producing shallower, the lower zones will be filled with cement/concrete (plugged), and then a shallower zone, lets say 12,000 feet below the surface water table will then be "perforated" and then hydraulically fractured, and production will start from that zone. Such will continue until all zones are emptied.

    At no time will hydraulic fracturing occur ANYWHERE near the water table, the aquifers. A properly designed well is a safe well. A non-properly designed well is a disaster. So that is KEY. WHEN industry cuts corners, uses cements which don't bond properly to the downhole pipe, problems can happen. Inspection is supposed to happen PRIOR to doing any fracturing operation. And then signed off on by government inspectors. IF that doesn't happen, disaster could happen. The checks and oversight IS there, but humans are humans and errors can happen.

    A small oil company will most likely take all the necessary steps to ensure complete compliance, that no corners are cut. A major though, my feeling is will cut corners. (I.E. Gulf of Mexico BP-operated Macondo Prospect disaster). In that well, it was not properly cemented. So the emphasis is proper cementing/surface bonding is needed for well integrity. Cementing bonding blocks and seals all water table zones from the surface down to the acquifer depths (to a maximum depth of about 500-1200 feet below the surface). WELL INTEGRITY then is guaranteed. THAT must be inspected and guaranteed safe by government inspectors.

    SO, what are the MAJORS then covering up, and why cause people to focus on "frac'ing" ?

    Remember that associated water issue.. Billions of gallons of associated water, which contains all those contaminants, HAS TO BE disposed of..

    Industry finds an old well that can't produce hydrocarbons any more, and they consider such wells as "disposal wells".. And they pump down, under pressure the associated water from other production wells that are still operating - the associated water needs to be extracted from the hydrocarbons then disposed of.

    USUALLY in an oil field there will be more than ONE well.. So there could be a situation of 1 or two disposal wells, and 30 producing wells. Quite possibly the disposal well chosen will be the DEEPEST WELL. It could possibly be a "dry hole" even, where there was no production, but drilled deeply... quite possibly to bedrock..

    OIL WELLS from the 1910-1930 era exist in some of those fields. And the state of those wells is hardly safe. What has happened USUALLY is an old well will be abandoned. Walked away from, the concrete over time cracks, the seals and barriers from the water table depths are no longer intact. No problem if there is no oil/gas being extracted from such a dead well...

    Along comes a major and says, here is where an injection "disposal" well will be created.. In an old field with improperly plugged wells, with old wells with broken damaged seal casings, and an injection well makes for a disaster in the making.

    Pressurized waste water (produced water, associated waste water from frac'ing operations) is injected into the disposal well, and the bottom zone blows up like a balloon.. and it is pressurized over and over and over... and it leaks, migrates the contaminated waste water over up to 20 miles away from the injection disposal well. The potential for water migration UPWARDS into other dead wells (those with cracked casings, lack of proper plugging) happens. THE OLD WELLS then leak into the aquifers, the surface water table from the INJECTION DISPOSAL WELL..

    Frac'ing water waste chemistry can then be seen in the aquifers, or surface water, from the flooding from below.. The monster from below is what the majors are hiding.

    The MONSTER from below is what the major's are hiding and causing attention to "frac'ing" operations.

    The majors have made their money, billions and billions and billions of dollars per quarter profit.. Smaller companies cannot compete with the majors..

    However, smaller companies can make a large dent in the major's profits by getting into the "tight shales", or where there are very small pores containing hydrocarbons.. the major's ignored these areas going primarily for OFF-SHORE areas where a well could produce 20,000 barrels a day of hydrocarbon.. An ON-SHORE at best may produce 1/10 that amount..

    To drive the minor oil companies OUT of the exploration and production field is the goal of the majors. They started the 'frac'ing' issue to cover up two things: 1) they want to drive out the minor small companies, ma's and pa's and thereby steal their leases 2) they wanted to divert attention away from the issue of cross contamination from improperly plugged wells, LEAKING from pressure coming up from the bottom, from INJECTION waste water disposal wells.

    As long as people are screaming about 'no frac'ing' they are playing into the hands of the majors.. WHO ARE and continue to FRAC off-shore on their massive production wells, and they can therefore DRUM OUT of the industry their competition. ON-SHORE smaller companies will be drummed out, cause the massive amounts of tight oil (small rock pores) will not be touched by the smaller producers.. Over time, when the smaller producers die off, they will come in, with massive campaigns, re-write the 'laws' and take the wealth.

    That is how the majors operate.

    They cover up that INJECTION WASTE WELLS that are used to dispose of ALL liquid waste water (consisting of frac'ing water waste, produced associated water from wells, industrial waste) and defective OLD WELLS which leak (which are not producing oil or gas) are causing seepage from the disposal well water leaking UPWARDS coming from the bottom is the cause of contamination...

    They keep the groups focused on 'frac'ing' cause it is emotionally moving.. contaminated water !!! no drinking water, and people jump and movements happen.. It is greed all right behind it, sleight of hand, and a campaign of MIS-DIRECTION... The majors don't ever stop frac'ing, offshore, cause their massive billions of dollars continue to come in, and if they can cut off competition on-shore, and have ways to dispose of the associated contaminated 'produced water', they feel they win.. and we all loose..

    It is NOT frac'ing causing the problem in other words.. The above explains it. I will re-iterate in a cross post (next post below) more data supporting this understanding, disposal wells, not frac'ing is the danger, from earthquakes and upwards migration of waste water through defective old wells improperly plugged or simply too old to be safe..

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Repost from another thread by me:

    Fracking - what's really happening; Industry vs Public vs EPA
    A 180 page report just came out.

    US Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) (we could call them an oversight group checks and balances) raised some important questions and made some key observations about the rest of the Agency's overwhelming statements that Fracking (or fracing) is unequivocally safe.

    After reading that 180 page report today, what I noted specifically is what I have pointed out observing the industry practice of "injection well" damage (leaks and earthquakes).

    To recap, an "injection well" is different than "injecting water into a new well to open up cracks in oil and gas formations".

    Point 1) An Injection Well is like a toilet, one is not expecting to pump out useful hydrocarbons from where the toilet flushes.

    Point 2) A Frack'd well, using water injection is a new well, where the goodies are trapped tightly in a formation and need to have something added to expand the small cracks, (like sands need to be added), to facilitate migration of oil and gas through those cracks.

    Point 3) Water table, the aquifer, underground fresh water reservoirs are located CLOSE to the surface of the earth.

    Point 4) Injection disposal wells (think toilet) are supposed to DUMP the waste down many many thousands of feet BELOW where the water table, or aquifer resides.

    There are many layers of cap rocks/sands/caprocks/sands/ in-between where the hydrocarbon goodies reside and the aquifer resides. That is the "protection", shielding by distance and shielding by many layers of alternating rock/sand layers.

    The industry then says, FRACKING IS SAFE. Logical really.

    People freak out, hearing injection and don't differentiate, don't understand depth of the bottom of the well, don't understand geology (they get shill geologists to say see fracking is dangerous..). Industry gets shill geologists to say it is perfectly safe, gets literally dozens of scientists to say fracking is safe.

    ISSUES

    1) A PROPERLY designed well, cased properly in sound rock layers is safe. That is the ideal scene. It is safe when the layers to be fracked are DEEP, and ONLY the deepest layer at the bottom of the well are to be fracked. A properly designed well will have had a geological study performed, doing core samples from top to bottom FIRST to analyze the stability of the layers from the aquifer surface drinking water, downwards through all the rock/sand/rock/sand layers and verify that they are intact.

    Fact - such is not done because core analysis is costly. Rule of thumb is there are enough layers, nothing really is going to leak during the frack operation up to the surface. Any seepage may take hundreds if not more years for a pressurized zone to migrate upwards.

    Fact - oil seeps, or hydrocarbon evidence on the surface of the earth is a result of deep formations having fractured, traveled upwards along the fractures (sometimes they are fault zones), and form on the surface. Early oil discovery in an area looked for surface seep evidence and used that to allow for wildcat drilling in an area.

    A well know seep area in California for instance: The La Brea Tar Pits. These are a group of tar pits around which Hancock Park was formed in urban Los Angeles. Natural asphalt (also called asphaltum, bitumen, pitch or tar—brea in Spanish) has seeped up from the ground in this area for tens of thousands of years. The tar is often covered with dust, leaves, or water. Over many centuries, the bones of animals that were trapped in the tar were preserved.

    Fact - when there is a strike, a prospect that pans out and provides production, if there is a potential for a reservoir, a channel, pocket, more wells will be drilled within those formations, in attempts to extract out ALL of the hydrocarbon. In actuality only 30-40% of the values are ever fully extracted due to the nature of the rock/sands, they are just not porous enough to release. That is why Fracking and Flooding operations are performed AFTERWARDS on a field when the oil starts to run out. (it's still there just trapped).

    And this is where the problems can happen.

    WHEN the OLD WELL runs dry, just how is it treated?

    Starting with the well construction: A well is drilled, tubing/casing is put in through the water table. That section is fully tightly cemented (basically like putting liquid rock into the top layers), so that the inner piping is permanently blocked off from the water-table layers up at the surface. Proper bonding proper cementing is required. Wells have been drilled and cased back in the early 1900's.

    Have you ever looked at OLD CONCRETE? Do you see it crumbling, breaking apart?




    (Above is from an old concrete driveway, one can see this old concrete damage everywhere)

    The process of concrete to remain strong, is a chemical process, but it shrinks, and it moves away from the outer and inner structure. The inner structure is the downhole pipe, the outer is the rock/sands to which it is supposed to be bound. BUT the shrinking results in de-bonding. When it debonds, over age, it (the concrete casing "shield" layer) can fracture, allowing migration.

    In fact, there was an in-depth study done to figure out what in the world was causing methane seepage from formations getting into Pennsylvania water supplies:

    The study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined 133 water wells with high levels of methane. Researchers found the contamination was either naturally occurring or linked to faulty well construction by gas drillers.

    Lead author Thomas Darrah of Ohio State University calls the findings a mix of good and bad news.

    The bad news is that drilling activities can contaminate shallow aquifers with methane gas.

    “The relatively good news is that the hydraulic fracturing process is not actually releasing the methane,” he says.

    “Instead, it’s actually problems along the well (concrete casing seal/bond) and well integrity that are allowing the some gas to leak out into the shallow aquifer.

    source: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...tainted-water/
    So putting that in perspective...

    When a new well goes in, the question to ask, are OLD WELLS (in the area) PROPERLY SEALED, if they are still pumping, have the CASINGS been leaking?

    IF they are, then one runs the risk that the frac'ing operation WILL cause feedback UP the OLD WELL and into other formations, and possibly INTO the water table.

    If one is using the INJECTION (DISPOSAL) WELL (toilet) to dispose of wastes, and there are OLD WELLS nearby, ARE THOSE OLD WELLS properly SEALED? Has the casing been examined, tested? IF those casings are leaking (concrete cracked/shrunk over time), then it is quite possible, that the INJECTED substances can seep UPWARDS through the OLD WELLS, and leak into the formations and potentially the water table.

    NOW, in the 180 page report -

    SAB (US Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB)) said that the EPA testers were going to drill TEST WELLS within an area which was complaining about having natural gas seep into well water, and those test wells were to MONITOR for leakage coming from down below. A Fracking well was to be drilled into the production formation, and the MONITORING well was to record what happens or not.

    Well EPA didn't do it. They just published that in over 900 studies there is no issue with FRACKING causing water table damage.. and left it at that.

    The SAB scientists were quite livid in the current report just released a few days ago.. They brought up the same points that I did above, that OLD WELLS drilled through the water table can leak because of the concrete de-bonding from the pipe and rock/sand. It is called WELL integrity in geek speak.

    Now, there is a process called WELL ABANDONMENT..

    After a well dries up (if it is not flooded with water to push the oil into another well called a stripper), it is PLUGGED. So what constitutes plugging? Well in the old days, folks tossed in junk into the old hole down thousands of feet, to take up space, then they poured in X sacks of concrete, and walked away, it was plugged so they said.. Well concrete STILL in that case will shrink, and cracks will form, and a sealed well may not be sealed really.

    Sometimes wells were just abandoned. The surface pumping rigged pulled and the operator walked. Or the operator died, and abandoned, or went out of business.. Records at times were scanty or not kept properly. Many records in the various state Oil commission's records SHOW "historically a well is supposed to be here, but upon inspection, no well could be found..." meaning it is somewhere else really, or the surface equipment pulled and no indication if the well was properly plugged...

    Plugging then could last for a period of time.. Until the concrete cracks..

    SO a new well being put in which is being FRACKED under pressure, where the same ZONE which was used (at a certain depth is where production happens, oil/gas extracted) for an old well nearby, IF the OLD well has "Well Integrity" issues can certainly LEAK into the water table.

    AND if there are numerous FRACTURES and FAULTS (as pointed out with the seep phenomena above) where one is going to drill down, causing any minute earthquake activity during fracturing could cause GAS to be released, upwards through the existing rock/sand layers and cause contamination. An earthquake of natural origins could also in such a situation cause the natural gases to seep upwards.. AND if there is drilling happening, people will freak out that it is the DRILLING and FRACKING...

    ALL without doing the proper pre-studies to point out the issues and risks.

    My general feeling is a small operator oil company will NOT do the necessary studies of all the older wells in the area, to ensure that the casings are intact and concrete properly bonded, but will just go ahead and drill. Chances are the majors will not check either, if they are on-shore drilling. Corners cut.

    If an area has the potential for leakage, due to OLDER wells in the area, the proper older well studies SHOULD BE DONE FIRST. Verify WELL integrity.. If that is not done, then it is an irresponsible operation to pressurize a field with old wells in it, either with disposal (toilet) injection wells, or existing fracking operations, or re-fracking an existing NEW well which has started to run dry after 3 years of operation..

    IT is the wells where operations started 25-100 years ago where the well integrity can be quite compromised.. Concrete shrinks and cracks, and debonding can happen, and a new well pushing pressure from the formation, up the OLD WELL casing/tubing certainly runs the risk for massive contamination.

    THAT EPA skirted OVER THAT is very concerning..

    References: Here is the link for the current report:

    https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebReportsLastMonthBOARD/BB6910FEC10C01A18525800C00647104/$File/EPA-SAB-16-005+Unsigned.pdf


    Here is a IS FRACKING SAFE checklist (GO/NO-GO):

    1) Is the region stable, with no hidden faults, and is the water-table isolated at shallow depths?

    2) Have cores (drilled rock samples) been performed testing the rock layers from the surface to the proposed production zone? Are they showing zero fractures/seeps from the production zone upwards through the water table?

    3) Are there old wells in the area? How old? Are those old wells sealed properly? (big question is how to test that they are sealed properly considering how concrete shrinks/cracks and debonds from pipe)

    4) IS there a connection between the old wells into the NEW zone(s) to be fracked? IF SO the well integrity issue is a very high contention point.

    5) IN a brand new area, stable rocks, no faults, proper separation between wells (if any), and extensive distance between the production hydrocarbon layer and the water table, AND A PROPERLY CURED SEALED CASING FOR THE TO BE FRACKED WELL - MOST LIKELY a fracking operation will be safe and successful and there will be no leakage from the currently fracked well and no damage will happen. Potentially micro-quakes will happen as the different ground layers settle, or expand and move..

    For item 5 to be successful, the bonding MUST be proper, and cured..

    Take for instance the BP DISASTER in the GULF of MEXICO about 6 years back.. IMPROPER BONDING of the CASING resulted in catastrophic blowout.

    Here is the headline from the NY Times:

    Panel Says Firms Knew of Cement Flaws Before Spill

    hmm, what have we been saying all along above? What have the scientists been saying who did the oversight on the EPA study? CEMENT ISSUES...

    Halliburton officials knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

    Halliburton (remember Dick Cheney and his position in Halliburton? just as an aside..), is not a small oil company. IT IS HUGE. Why would they cut corners?

    ...[..]
    commission staff determined that Halliburton had conducted three laboratory tests that indicated that the cement mixture did not meet industry standards. "Another Halliburton cement test, carried out about a week before the blowout of the well on April 20, also found the mixture to be unstable, meaning it was unlikely to set properly in the well, but those findings were never sent to BP, Mr. Bartlit found after reviewing previously undisclosed documents.

    "Although Mr. Bartlit did not specifically identify the cement failure as the sole or even primary cause of the blowout, he made clear in his letter that if the cement had done its job and kept the highly pressurized oil and gas out of the well bore, there would have been no accident."

    HOW many of the OLD WELLS have had laboratory standards and testing (like in 1919) applied for instance to ensure the integrity and bonding of the well bore's cement casing was properly done?

    HOW many companies doing FRACKING will conduct the 5 steps above?

    WHEN will the EPA carry out the proper monitoring steps and not just let the industry say, FRACKING unequivocally is SAFE and no damage to the water table will happen?

    The above points out the REALITY of drilling and safely securing a well. IT is not rocket science, but certain steps must be completed properly prior to drilling, while drilling, and afterwards. Those not being done properly and there can be disaster - (see BP's Halliburton's drama in the Gulf of Mexico)..

    Banning Fracking makes no sense, seriously. Such allows for energy recovery, such as CLEAN BURNING NATURAL GAS, and allows for gases in industry such as HELIUM to be recovered (which deep gas wells do produce in certain areas, and HELIUM is a necessary commodity, and it is NOT burned and does NOT contribute to the carbon footprint).. FRACKING done properly allows for immense recovery of hydrocarbon fuels.

    BANNING fracking puts the world back into either the nuclear age as that is the only alternative where there is no wind and natural water power.

    ENFORCING the proper STEPS 1-5 above is needed. That is not rocket science that is a political football.. Who has stopped those steps? Who will continue to interfere or stop those steps?

    NY Times reference (BP/Halliburton) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/29spill.html?_r=0
    Last edited by Bob; 23rd November 2016 at 19:55.

  26. Link to Post #15
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,776 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Government delayed release of shale impact report ...








    Published on Nov 25, 2016
    Emails released today show that the Government deliberately delayed the full release of a report on fracking impacts – which it had been ordered to publish – until after the decisions on Cuadrilla’s shale gas applications.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  27. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    DNA (18th March 2018), Ewan (3rd February 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th November 2016), Hervé (25th November 2016)

  28. Link to Post #16
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,127
    Thanks
    27,056
    Thanked 47,646 times in 9,705 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    VICTORY! -- EPA retracts Fracked Conclusion
    From a nonprofit called Beyond Extreme Energy today 12/15/16
    Quote I just wanted to send you a quick update and share some exciting news from this week -- You're one of the thousands of people who signed on with Beyond Extreme Energy and a host of partners to ask the EPA to retract their report which inaccurately stated that fracking caused "no widespread, systemic impact" on drinking water.

    Thanks to your advocacy, and the tireless work of frontline activists in Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Texas (just to name a few of the places EPA studied during the 5 years they worked on this report), earlier this week the EPA released a final version of that report that admitted the truth: Fracking can and does contaminate drinking water.

    Coming so closely on the heels of our petition campaign, there's no doubt that our advocacy and emails have helped make this happen. So THANK YOU again for signing on and speaking up - together, we made an impactThis is only a small step towards proving the dangers of fracking, and banning this dangerous and unnecessary drilling practice around the world. But the impact is real, and the media has taken notice. Dozens of newspapers and television stations covered the story of EPA's retraction in the final report.

    And because the report was ordered by Congress, not the Administration, there's a good chance we can use these conclusions to delay or restrict fracking near the most vulnerable areas. Even Donald Trump can't un-write this report, now that it's finally been issued, and any moves he makes to expand fracking in our communities will have to be justified in light of these dangers.

    Thanks again for all your work and advocacy on this issue,

    Drew and the team at Beyond Extreme Energy
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Cara (16th December 2016), DNA (18th March 2018), Ewan (3rd February 2018), Foxie Loxie (4th February 2018), Hervé (16th December 2016)

  30. Link to Post #17
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by Baby Steps (here)
    Hi,
    as I predicted, we are going to see evidence for the fracking process as a WASTE DISPOSAL technique.
    The more noxious the waste, the more money to be made by dumping it.
    I would speculate that this secret sub-industry is a large part of the US fracking industry's profits. Why are they so secretive about the contents of 'Fracking Water'
    Why is there no testing and accountability?

    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/0...d-for-decades/

    God Bless
    Sad to find this confirmed on poor mr Christensen's ranch....

    Quote The Safe Drinking Water Act forbids injecting industrial waste into or above drinking water aquifers, but the EPA issued what are called aquifer exemptions that gave mine operators at the ranch permission to ignore the law. Over the last three decades, the agency has issued more than 1,500 such exemptions nationwide, allowing energy and mining companies to pollute portions of at least 100 drinking water aquifers.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  31. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    avid (3rd February 2018), Bob (4th February 2018), DNA (18th March 2018), Ewan (3rd February 2018), Foxie Loxie (4th February 2018), Hervé (3rd February 2018), onawah (4th February 2018)

  32. Link to Post #18
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Show us the data, chemical analysis that the waste disposal was into the aquifer. I seriously doubt anybody would do such a thing.

    I made it QUITE clear in post 14 above how any contamination happens. IF anybody dumps into a disposal well and has NOT done the study about adjacent wells, then they are guilty of gross negligence..

    Again, show us the chemical analysis from the disposal well and the alleged contamination in the upper zones of the aquifer. Without that, it is typical "fraking hysteria". IMHO of course..
    Last edited by Bob; 4th February 2018 at 00:21.

  33. Link to Post #19
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    14,916
    Thanked 6,357 times in 1,254 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Show us the data, chemical analysis that the waste disposal was into the aquifer. I seriously doubt anybody would do such a thing.

    I made it QUITE clear in post 14 above how any contamination happens. IF anybody dumps into a disposal well and has NOT done the study about adjacent wells, then they are guilty of gross negligence..

    Again, show us the chemical analysis from the disposal well and the alleged contamination in the upper zones of the aquifer. Without that, it is typical "fraking hysteria". IMHO of course..
    Good point.

    my perspective is more Eco - it's just very disturbing that any poisonous water in being injected into any strata. One hopes it can be done safely, but I feel a long term fear that the surface water will become poisonous, and the land will no longer support humans.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Bob (4th February 2018), DNA (18th March 2018), Foxie Loxie (4th February 2018)

  35. Link to Post #20
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Fracking And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by Baby Steps (here)
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Show us the data, chemical analysis that the waste disposal was into the aquifer. I seriously doubt anybody would do such a thing.

    I made it QUITE clear in post 14 above how any contamination happens. IF anybody dumps into a disposal well and has NOT done the study about adjacent wells, then they are guilty of gross negligence..

    Again, show us the chemical analysis from the disposal well and the alleged contamination in the upper zones of the aquifer. Without that, it is typical "fraking hysteria". IMHO of course..
    Good point.

    my perspective is more Eco - it's just very disturbing that any poisonous water in being injected into any strata. One hopes it can be done safely, but I feel a long term fear that the surface water will become poisonous, and the land will no longer support humans.
    Thats a great logic. Thanks for expressing one's concerns in a concise clear way.

    I am extremely concerned as well; so much so to be developing search and analysis equipment, being able to track a source of pollution coming from an injection/disposal well. Imagine being able to say it's this or that well, formerly operated (and abandoned) by such and such company and that they then have the responsibility for cleaning up the mess..

    Or what is worse, an ancient (by production standards), well that nobody knew was there, with an old leaky casing that was drilled deep enough into a former oil or gas production zone, that now has fluid coming back up the old well from below; and then cause the top of the well pipe may be welded shut (the old way of sealing/abandoning), the liquid has no other way to go except from the holes in the "so-called-sealed" casing.. disaster in the making..

    THAT problem is what is not being talked about in the industry and the legislational/regulatory/inspection body of the governments. When folks feel the ground shake they wake up and say "fraking" and get it all wrong. It is not "fraking", in the earthquakes it is over-pressuring a system, inducing sliding and slipping.

    Leaking water as Herve' pointed out (as did I) can contain many contaminants which should stay down below and not be allowed to in any way get to the surface (for evaporative concentration disposal).. As those could leech into rainwater, and enter the water table, or streams..

    What we need is education. What the problem is, how the problem got there, what the solution is, then the verification that proper disposal is happening.

    Again good logic, good observations. We can't allow for industry (or regulatory) suppression to hide the fact that OLD wells in the area, that touch the formation where disposal is happening CAN leak from the bottom up and into the so-called-protected aquifers.. Proper abandonment consists of properly plugging UNDER PRESSURE to fill and seal up any porosity from the well bore casing into the surrounding surface soils/rocks. Proper preparation in the old days, from the 1890's-1920's didn't exist. Those old wells ARE a sitting disaster waiting to happen.

    We need the awareness and policy, NO DISPOSAL WELLS where there has been past production (other older "abandoned" wells).. Thing is the way the disposal over-pressuring works, an OLDER defective well could be a distance of 20 MILES or so away and have the bottom up flow happening (and leaking)...

    That is where attention should be.

    Supply documentation of contaminants and documentation of where the contaminants are appearing. That means monitoring regularly, not sweeping under the rug, the industry problems.. is this solvable YES..
    Last edited by Bob; 4th February 2018 at 16:28.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts