By justin harr
From moorcroft, wyoming
Jun 23, 2012
| I was born in Pittsburgh and now live by Devils Tower Wyoming. Although I hear what everyone is saying about the oil and gas industry and we might as well put the coal industry in the boat too. Guess if we dont like it we could stay cool in the shade tree in the summer and hope were good fire builders to stay warm in the winter. Think I'll take my coal fired electricity and my natural gas that was produced right here in the US. | 
FLAG |
By topher donahue
Jun 23, 2012
| Mia Tucholke wrote: Personally I hate talking politics in a climbing forum. There are other places for that.
This conversation is about power endurance, not politics. I agree, keep politics out of it. We are all in this system that is supported by fossil fuel, but that doesn't mean we have to like it and not question it.
I never said we should stop fracking or using fossil fuels cold turkey - I do think we should use our fossil fuels with care, be careful with fracking, and not do it in town. |
FLAG |
By Bryan Gilmore
From Your Mama
Jun 23, 2012
| Mia Tucholke wrote: Personally I hate talking politics in a climbing forum. There are other places for that.
Classic Armchair Activist. Talking Fracking = talking Politics |
FLAG |
By Princess Mia
From Vail
Jun 23, 2012
| Beagle----- clearly you havnt read this thread..... I have not talked about fracking, nor will I......
And I am not an armchair activist, in fact I can be quite active, but not about politics on MP.....
Just my humble opinion.... |
FLAG |
By Nick Stayner
From The Magic City
Jun 23, 2012
| Mia, if you don't want to talk politics, why even bother entering the fray? Easy enough just to ignore the thread and even easier not to respond to it, no?
Airbiscuit & others "in the industry", thanks for engaging on here. Been really interesting to learn more about the actual process and geology/hydrology. Information like that only enhances people's understanding regardless of their views on other aspects of the issue (business, regulation, etc...).
FWIW, currently driving through the Powder River Basin on my way to Tensleep from Billings. Seems pertinent and on topic as i look out at the rigs... |
FLAG |
By Mike Lane
From Centennial, CO
Jun 23, 2012
| Mia Tucholke wrote: Beagle----- clearly you havnt read this thread..... I have not talked about fracking, nor will I...... And I am not an armchair activist, in fact I can be quite active, but not about politics on MP..... Just my humble opinion....
Mia- this site is packed full of very well informed people, versus so many other places that are just nothing but trolls. Thus, it is great place for such discussions. |
FLAG |
By Jason N.
From Grand Junction
Jun 23, 2012
| Beagle wrote: I'm sure someone else has already made this point, BUT... IF YOU DON'T LIKE FRACKING: • stop driving your car • stop using climbing gear • stop using public roads • stop using your computer/iPhone • stop climbing in Rifle • stop using your grill • stop living in a house or a tent • stop flying around the globe to cool climbing areas • stop buying food at stores • stop drinking beer The list goes on...
This is terrible logic... |
FLAG |
By coppolillo
Jun 23, 2012
| Yeah, the old "if you don't like it, then don't drive your car..." logic is a straw man-argument. classic.
thanks to the posters with real info...much appreciated. nice to see a civil discussion on mp!
RC |
FLAG |
By Gung-ho Gumby
Jun 23, 2012
| topher donahue wrote: I realize that the drilling is separate from the fracking from an operational standpoint, but isn't that a little like saying that the companies making guns don't make the bullets, so therefore guns don't kill things, the bullets do?
Yes, you are correct. I knew someone would say this about my comment. But, I think it would be more accurate if your post read "Natural gas production ruins an American bouldering mecca." It's a bummer.
Nick Stayer wrote: I can't speak for Brian, but I know that both of us grew up in Wyoming and saw the disaster that became Rock Springs as the result of a different boom/bust type industry and see the potential for it in different parts of the state now. The "animal" is actually a pretty apt descriptor for a lot of the people I've seen around Gillette and Pinedale, people there solely to make a quick $$, work as many hours as humanly possible and could care less that they're in WY or about enjoying all of the unique things the state has to offer or about what happens to the people who call Wyoming home during and after their development of the resource is done...
For sure. That's what it's like down here, except the area I work in is pretty much a barren wasteland and it's hard to imagine that it has anything unique to offer other than the opportunity to make money. Many of the "men" I work with (I put that in quotations because they behave more like junior high kids) are exactly as you describe. They are here for the money (myself included). If I was working in the middle of a beautiful natural area, or within earshot of a school where the roaring equipment noise would be disrupting class, I would feel really uneasy/guilty about it.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the following concerns about fracking:
1. It uses incredible amounts of fresh water.
2. The chemically laden (and sometimes radioactive) waste water collected during flowback is disposed of in waste water injection wells in places like Ohio. They just pump it into the ground. Or it makes its way to sewage treatment plants, which aren't equipped to take care of it.
In case anyone is curious, here is a photo I took on the job:
The reality is, our economy and society is so dependent on and demanding of oil and gas and coal that there is pretty much no way to stop the E&P companies from obtaining land which has the potential for profit, no matter what lies on top of that land. |
FLAG |
By topher donahue
Jun 24, 2012
| Gung-ho Gumby, THANK YOU! You're right, I should have titled the post differently. It's really good, albeit a bit scary, to hear an insider's perspective on it who isn't cheerleading for the industry.
Looking back on this in a hundred years, when we have less of all our natural resources - including fresh water - I'm sure these practices of injecting millions of gallons of toxin-laden fresh water into the ground will be viewed as beyond barbaric and unfathomably wasteful. |
FLAG |
By Mike Lane
From Centennial, CO
Jun 24, 2012
| Buckminster Fuller described what we do as incorporating 'energy slaves'. By that, he means that when society manifested energy useage as we do, we radically improved our standard of living. So much so that the average American through what energy provides has the equivalents of 1000's of slaves that kings of prior epochs would need for a similar standard of living. Think about this way:
- To keep your home at a consistent 72 degrees in the winter would require dozens of full time lumberjacks chopping trees and maintaining fires.
- Radio and TV replace perhaps 100's of thousands of musicians and actors.
- Readily available water, easy transportation (horses and all they require), clothing, food, it goes on and on.
His point is that most of us have far and away a higher standard of living than even the greatest kings of history, and this is exclusively due to energy consumption.
He then furthers his point that we waste energy radically through inefficient design, and postulates that if we have elevated ourselves to this extent being wasteful, that we could design for real efficiency and perhaps elevate ourselves to the point where we actually evolve past the need for money (he was a utopian).
So consider what energy useage has done for us so far. As obnoxious as this paradigm of extraction seems, it is a vast improvement over past versions and part of n evolution which has ultimately served humanity greatly.
My point ere is that it'd be great, and hopefully inevitable that we recognize our burning through hydrocarbons in such a wasteful way is akin to living life through spending a savings account. But that modern fracking has eliminated many worse extraction methods is evidence that the market is driving us towards a wiser paradigm. |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Eugene, OR
Jun 24, 2012
| Gung-ho Gumby wrote: I'm surprised no one has brought up the following concerns about fracking: 1. It uses incredible amounts of fresh water. 2. The chemically laden (and sometimes radioactive) waste water collected during flowback is disposed of in waste water injection wells in places like Ohio. They just pump it into the ground. Or it makes its way to sewage treatment plants, which aren't equipped to take care of it. In case anyone is curious, here is a photo I took on the job: The reality is, our economy and society is so dependent on and demanding of oil and gas and coal that there is pretty much no way to stop the E&P companies from obtaining land which has the potential for profit, no matter what lies on top of that land.
In the HES labs, we'd have to test both the well water they'd use to make sure they could make a gel out of it, and after the fact because some companies would keep using their flowback water to make more gel until crosslinking was impossible. I became something like the "animals" (actually a euphemism motivated by the way management typically treats drill and frac crews: livestock) in that I hated having to test flowback water. I basically hit rock bottom, personally, when I realized that I cared more about my paycheck than the impact of my work. At my next job, I stocked shelves at a grocery store for less than half the pay. I'm still trying to buy back my soul.
Also, Rock Springs is basically desolate, but the service companies based out of there are at work in the Jonah Field, just south of the Wind River mountain range.
| Looking into the Jonah field from south of Farson.
Submitted By: Brian Scoggins on Jun 24, 2012
|
Its worth pointing out that their efforts might cutoff the longest land migratory path in the lower 48. And most of the line animals hunt the pronghorn they're inadvertently trying to eradicate. Pronghorn Passage |
FLAG |
By Airbiscuit
Jun 25, 2012
| There is a new company out there that has figured out how to take the "Hydraulic" out of the fracking process - ie no water. I don't know anything about it other that the initial reports are promising.
It drastically reducees the cost and increase the overall efficency of the fracking process. |
FLAG |
By Jeremy Hand
Jun 26, 2012
| Sorry for the delay in response, I typically only check MP during the work week.
cjdrover wrote: Re: Thorium Like most seemingly miraculous energy concepts, things are more complicated than they appear in a short forum post. It is true that at a thorium based fuel cycle has inherent advantages in regards to nuclear weapons - namely, that thorium fuel can't be refined into weapons. Good news there. However, the U.S. DID experiment with molten salt thorium fuel cycles at Oak Ridge about 50 years ago. Not sure exactly how that went, but there is a legitimate discussion to be had about this design. In my understanding, research is picking up again. Re: E-CAT The inventor's flat refusal to allow independent testing of his device speaks volumes.
Re: Thorium
I'm betting that thorium wasn't pursuited after WWII for weaponization reasons. Why advance a technology that only produces energy when another, uranium, produces multiple products - energy and weapons.
ucs.berkeley.edu/energy/2012/06/windmisc/thorium-the-future->>>
Also, China has placed their bet on thorium
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8>>>
“Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.
“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.
If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.
“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.”
Re: E-CAT
I think it is obvious why one would not want to divulge any information about his invention as I am sure there are plenty of people who would take advantage of said information and would try to replicate his process and thus creating competition. It is like a trade secret or patent... just because the inventor doesn't want everyone else to know his process doesn't discredit him in any shape or form IMO.
Also, apparently some commercial clients have taken his project seriously enough to make a $24 million dollar order... Though this was awhile back and only when it was producing lower temperature steam.
evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2035
Beagle wrote: I'm sure someone else has already made this point, BUT... IF YOU DON'T LIKE FRACKING: • stop driving your car • stop using climbing gear • stop using public roads • stop using your computer/iPhone • stop climbing in Rifle • stop using your grill • stop living in a house or a tent • stop flying around the globe to cool climbing areas • stop buying food at stores • stop drinking beer The list goes on...
What?
Gung-ho Gumby wrote: I'm surprised no one has brought up the following concerns about fracking: 1. It uses incredible amounts of fresh water. 2. The chemically laden (and sometimes radioactive) waste water collected during flowback is disposed of in waste water injection wells in places like Ohio. They just pump it into the ground.
The first concern has been mentioned earlier in the thread and is definitely something to be alarmed of. When there are plenty of people voicing their concerns about the lack of fresh water on earth.
The second is something to be very wary of and would probably be the main cause of any contamination
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/ohio-tries-to-escape-fate->>>
"Still, with fracking’s increase, Ohio’s wells absorbed 368.3 million gallons during last year’s first three quarters, according to Natural Resources Department records. That’s up from 359.3 million for all of 2010 and more than in any year since 1987, records show. The state approved 29 permits for wells last year after averaging about four a year for the past two decades."
I cannot find any information on how deep waste-water wells are but I highly doubt they are 5,000 feet, much less 8,000 feet, below the surface as are fracking wells.
Maybe the fracking is what we should be worrying about, but the contaminated brine wells are.
Airbiscuit wrote: There is a new company out there that has figured out how to take the "Hydraulic" out of the fracking process - ie no water. I don't know anything about it other that the initial reports are promising.
It is fantastic to hear about this new process, but how long will it take to implement this across the board? I doubt many companies would be willing to throw away their more conventional processes unless enforced through strict regulation. I have no faith in the regulation of the EPA or whomever dictates those measures. |
FLAG |
By Airbiscuit
Jun 26, 2012
| Our disposal wells are between 9,000 and 10,000 ft. Plenty deep!
It is fantastic to hear about this new process, but how long will it take to implement this across the board? I doubt many companies would be willing to throw away their more conventional processes unless enforced through strict regulation. I have no faith in the regulation of the EPA or whomever dictates those measures.
If it saves money and streamlines process it will be adopted and adopted fairly quickley. If it works It's a no brainer. |
FLAG |
By Jeremy Hand
Jun 26, 2012
| Whoa! That is a helluva a lot deeper than I had imagined!
And I'm not sure if it would be a no brainer.... There is a lot of money in buying new equipment and scrapping old equipment and a lot of companies typically would frown apon taking a quarterly loss or slump even if it helps save them a couple of bucks in the future. I'm not trying to argue, just stating that it probably wouldn't be adopted as quickly as we'd like to hope or think. In any case, new technology or advancing old technology is always a plus!
Happy drilling! |
FLAG |
By topher donahue
Jun 26, 2012
| Good info here! A couple questions for those of you experienced in the industry:
Do you think fracking operations should be allowed to happen right next to elementary schools?
Would you feel completely safe with one in your yard? |
FLAG |
By Rigggs24
From Denver, CO
Jun 26, 2012
| topher donahue wrote: Good info here! A couple questions for those of you experienced in the industry: Do you think fracking operations should be allowed to happen right next to elementary schools? Would you feel completely safe with one in your yard?
I think the question you should ask is "Do you want a company drilling a well in your backyard?" If the answer is yes the the same answer should apply to having it fracked. I would not be any more against having a well fracked than having it drilled period. In fact, personally, the completion technique would not play much of a role in my decision to let a rig into my back yard.....not that I would. But this doesnt apply since I dont actually own any land. |
FLAG |
By Gung-ho Gumby
Jun 26, 2012
| Airbiscuit wrote: There is a new company out there that has figured out how to take the "Hydraulic" out of the fracking process - ie no water. I don't know anything about it other that the initial reports are promising. It drastically reducees the cost and increase the overall efficency of the fracking process.
I know of one Alberta based well service company called GasFrac that does LPG (liquid petroleum gas) fracturing (I think they even hold the patent). Completely waterless. They claim it is much more environmentally friendly and requires less energy for cleanup. The liquid gas is collected during flowback, processed, and reused. I don't know much else about it. Sounds cool though.
(Also, the majority of the equipment would be the same as conventional frac)
(This thread is going waaaay off topic) |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Eugene, OR
Jul 5, 2012
| Jeremy Hand wrote: Re: E-CAT I think it is obvious why one would not want to divulge any information about his invention as I am sure there are plenty of people who would take advantage of said information and would try to replicate his process and thus creating competition. It is like a trade secret or patent... just because the inventor doesn't want everyone else to know his process doesn't discredit him in any shape or form IMO. Also, apparently some commercial clients have taken his project seriously enough to make a $24 million dollar order... Though this was awhile back and only when it was producing lower temperature steam. evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2035
Regarding this: inventing a new source of energy, attempting to patent it (it was blocked on the grounds that the application lacked sufficient experimental or theoretical justification for its existence), then still refusing to open it up to inspection by qualified people? Something smells fishy here. The article specifically mentions a "little understood physical process often identified as 'cold fusion'". That sends off alarm bells in my mind, if nothing else because people have been working, and publishing, on it for decades with no success. Even frac-ing made it into peer-reviewed journals.
The e-Cat guy is using the time honored tactic of claiming that the reason his results aren't accepted by the scientific establishment is some kind of vast regressive conspiracy. This is basically a cover for "I'm manufacturing this, from whole cloth, and believe that shouting 'Nuclear Physics!' first will prevent anyone from actually examining my claims". Its happened repeatedly. Look at the Time-Cube guy. Or "Intelligent Design". He has not explained how he overcame the Coulomb barrier (which is the principle block to "cold" fusion), he has not explained why the fusion only produces stable isotopes, he has not explained the total absence of gamma rays, etc. etc. etc. He's a confidence man. |
FLAG |
By Buff Johnson
Jul 5, 2012
| Don't forget, 7/7 is take a fracking cylon out for a good fracking day |
FLAG |
By topher donahue
Jul 5, 2012
| Great info rolling in. Thanks guys! I must admit, it doesn't speak well for fracking that, with all the experienced folks in this thread, nobody has responded to these two uneducated and simple questions:
Do you think fracking operations should be allowed to happen right next to elementary schools?
Would you feel completely safe with one in your yard?
(Riggs24 suggested I ask a different question - replacing fracking with "drilling a well" but I'll stick to fracking in this discussion because I don't see the danger in the drilling - we drill for water, core samples, etc, but they don't have even remotely the toxic elements of fracking) |
FLAG |
By Jeremy Hand
Jul 5, 2012
| Hahaha. Hilarious!
No
and
No
Thanks for the awesome thread - the subject matter is not awesome but all of the information and discussion has been fantastic! |
FLAG |
By Airbiscuit
Jul 7, 2012
| Topher, where do you think that school gets it's water from? A big hole in the ground where the kids in detention have to go for an hour at a time and trolly up buckets to fill the washpans? While this idea amuses me - sadly no. 98% of the time in 98% of the US. It comes from a central city water source where I can assure you the city filtration systems are constantly filtering out much worse than anything O&G is putting in there.
So the answere to the first question is yes.
The answer to the second question is hell yes. Even if I was on a well. I would take my royaltys and put in a PV system for my own energy needs upgrade the efficency of my house, Invest the rest and then spend the winters in Chamonix.
I am a energy user, and a realist. Right now that is where our main source of energy comes from and we are all suckling from the same tit. That's life, that's our reality. When a better source comes around that can pay it's own way in the free market system and compete i'll be the first in line. I hope that day comes sooner than later.
Meanwhile sacrafices like "having a rig and frack next to elementry schools" are in my opinion, nessesary evils to keep the jobs, energy security, and the massive amouts of money they all generate, here at home. -- That rig is going to be there for two weeks (Maybe), the fracking crew another two weeks. Then it's just (& in the worst case senario) a pumpjack and and a few drip tanks that are going to sit there silently flowing black gold for the next twenty years. All of this happening just So that I can drive to Indian Creek for the weeked if i so choose to.
Meanwhile that single drilling operation can produce periphial employment of up to 500 jobs.
Seems to me a small price to pay until we get our shit together as a country.
I might add that based on your last post, you have learned nothing in this entire 4 pages of forum. That is probally why no one answered. |
FLAG |
|
RSS Feed
