Fracking ruins an American bouldering mecca

Ray Pinpillage wrote:The irony is that outraged people scream how Fracking must stop but fill up their gas tank without even knowing that we're producing more gasoline from fracture drilling every day.

I for one am not screaming that fracking must stop - we still need fossil fuels - but I am screaming that we shouldn't be doing it right next to elementary schools and right in the middle of town (like this photo in Erie, CO) when nobody seems to be able to prove whether it is safe or not. As much as I like climbing access, that really doesn't matter compared to the potential poisoning of a town. Yeah, they're starting to regulate, etc, but they're already pumping toxins into the ground and air right next to elementary schools and neighborhoods.

This drilling site is for natural gas, not oil, but energy is energy, and I'd guess everyone posting here would like to see a cleaner, better energy system - so how to we encourage the next energy paradigm without being so polarized that we can't move forward?

PS: It's cool to see a civil discussion here!

Matt G wrote:Ray, don't confuse "fracking" as an actual drilling process. It isn't. The fracking of a well happens after the well is drilled to allow gas to flow to the well bore.

I understand, it's a clumsy post on my part. You get what I'm saying though.

Ask all you want for specific "misinformation" and suddenly the cries go silent. Sure, Gasland had its point of view...but did the person making the movie have a multimillion-dollar stake in that point of view? Probably not. "Truthland", produced by people making millions/billions off public/private land exploration/fracking/drilling, has its point of view, too.

Gee, which one might be more biased?

I'm with Topher--we need fossil fuels, etc...but without regulation and oversight, the oil companies will destroy communities, the environment, you name it. see: Ecuador, the Niger Delta, Prince William Sound...

Gung-ho Gumby wrote:I have one more thing to add. Many people seem to be confused or misinformed about fracking vs. drilling and whatnot. The photo that Topher posted is of a DRILLING RIG. The company that is hired to do drilling operations isn't an oil company or a fracking company. Drilling is it's own complex procedure and I'm not aware of any drilling companies that do anything but drill. Well service companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger (schlum-bear-JAY) are the ones who do cement and frac and other services. Halliburton is NOT an oil company and they DO NOT drill. Chances are once that rig next to the school is taken down when drilling is completed, frac equipment will be brought in for anywhere from 1-several days for the well to be "stimulated." I'm not trying to make a comment about whether or not it's good/bad that oil development is going on in sight of an elementary school. I just want to clarify some things that seem to be misunderstood.

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?

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?

Actually, people kill things using various tools, including but not limited to guns. You could probably figure a way to kill someone with just a bullet and no gun, or a gun with no bullets. But this is just a stupid digression.

JLP wrote: I just want to point out that you would never see this happening in the middle of Boulder. If it has to happen somewhere in CO, downtown Erie gets my vote. I'm actually kind of surprised they're not strip mining the place, but I guess that might interfere with the landfill.

In fact, mineral rights are usually regulated at the state level, not by the city or county. SO far Vermont is the only state to ban fracking. If they find a good deposit under Boulder County, they'll try to drill it - but I'm sure there will be a doozy of a demonstration if they try. There is a moratorium on fracking permits in the county, but it will eventually expire...

Here's a quote from a Boulder land use official from an article yesterday:
"Regardless of what we'd like to do, we cannot do that (ban fracking)"

Read more: coloradodaily.com/news/ci_2…
Coloradodaily.com

I'm not sure if I should post this here or start another thread, but since we're sort of on the topic of alternative fuels why not discuss some? Maybe some that don't get that much lime light.... Topher, if you believe I should post this somewhere else I'll digress...

I'm sure plenty of you have heard of thorium nuclear reactors which is a terrific alternative to the conventional, uranium nuclear reactor.

"thorium -- an element named for the Norse God of Thunder Thor -- is more abundant, produces less waste and is less dangerous than uranium, while at the same time a great source of energy that won’t add to greenhouse gas emissions"

"Another advantage is that waste produced by thorium reactors can't be used to make nuclear weapons, at least it’s an advantage if the goal is to stop nuclear proliferation across the globe. Thorium reactors are also easier to shut down"

Also, cold fusion has been a tested theory for years and has finally been stablized..

Rossi E-Cat

" an E-Cat works by specially processed and enriched (in isotopes Ni-62 and Ni-64) nickel powder being placed in a small steel reactor core. In addition to the nickel powder, certain catalysts are placed in the core, along with a small pellet that releases and absorbs hydrogen gas. An electric resistor heats the reactor core which induces hydrogen to be released from the pellet. A radio frequency generator is then used to apply frequencies to the contents of the core. The result is a number of different, but safe nuclear reactions taking place that release huge amounts of energy in the form of heat. No nuclear waste is produced, no radiation escapes the core, but the heat produced can be harnessed to do work."

"E-Cat can now produce steam that can be used to power modern turbines, such as those used in ordinary fossil fuel burning power plants"

"ECAT Fuel (Ni-H) in Comparison with oil:

•Costs 1/1000 of Oil – (Cost less than transportation cost of oil)
•Energy Density > 100 000 x oil
•Power Density > 100 kW/l
•Reserves 10 billion years – oil 150 years
•No emissions, no pollution, no noise.
•1 liter Ni-H 2 000 000 liter oil"

I apologize is some see this as derailing the thread.. I figured we could add some more dynamic discussion to this already interesting thread.

Jeremy,
Your addition is great - do any of you know why thorium reactors aren't yet a big part of our energy portfolio?

Then we could save our 150 years of oil for the important things - like road trips;)

Jeremy,
I did a little research, and seems that something better would be solar energy, ideally stored in molten salt batteries. The way one author put it - solar power is nuclear power, but the reactor is 93 million miles away.

smartplanet.com/blog/intell…

Too bad the energy lobby only represents profit makers from the 20th century...

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.

Science Friday had a long debate on thorium reactors several weeks (months?) ago. There was definitely a pro/con debate to using these, as usual there's no free lunch.

The cold fusion/E-cat thing appears to promise a free lunch for everybody. I wish that it would work for the sake of the world, but it's certainly more fantasy than fact.

The debatable dangers of fracking must be considered in light of the dangers associated with dirtier sources of energy.

Consider thishttp://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/greenhouse-gases-cut/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

The stories of natural gas being cleaner than coal can be misleading too, because they only look at the burned emissions, not the methane leaks and associated emissions. Here's the flip side:

news.cornell.edu/stories/Ap…

The study by Cornell University found that fracked natural gas contributes to more greenhouse gas emissions than coal burning when considered in whole - here's the quote that sums it up:

"The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil," Howarth said. "We are not advocating for more coal or oil, but rather to move to a truly green, renewable future as quickly as possible. We need to look at the true environmental consequences of shale gas."
-Professor Howarth, Cornell University

Here is an intelligent conversation (for the most part). BASE 104 has a great handle on what actually goes on out here, and modern industry practices, There is so much missinformation out there, those of us within the industry just shake our heads.

Base Provides some great information in this thread about fracking, Oil & Gas, and the industry in general, more than I have ever seen on a site such as this. Read and be educated.

supertopo.com/climbing/thre…;tn=20

Yes, shale gas is worse than conventional, but it has been access to shale that has driven down the cost of gas enough for it's use to grow so quickly.

As all issues go, studies can be quoted to support both sides of arguments. Human-caused (?) global warming is a good expample of this. The question then is what do the majority of studies say about an issue - say about shale gas versus coal emissions? Generally speaking, studies find that shale gas is an energy source that produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

Sounds like it's all under control then and there is nothing to worry about. Whew, for a minute there I thought we humans were doing something that we'd regret. There's nothing to see here. Carry on.

No, not really, our energy policy as a whole is pretty much a disaster. There should be discourse. But if you don't know the first thing about something it kind of sucks to go sensationalizing a bunch of bullshit about it.

No, I think this discourse is all really good, as is the ST discussion, it's just I'd prefer to walk away when the experts don't want to be questioned. We need to have these discussions. In one post I put on Facebook, somebody replied, "What's fracking?" That pretty much says it all - most of us are in the dark, then a fracking operation shows up in our yards.

I think everyone who has contributed to this thread is thinking about the right stuff. Even those who don't know a thing about it, including myself. I don't know anything, but I'm not sensationalizing bullshit either - I'm just sharing what I'm seeing out there and fracking by elementary schools in Colorado and all over the hunting/hiking/fishing/bouldering wonderland of Pennsylvania is reason enough to be concerned.

I've enjoyed it more than any other MP thread I've ever seen. Let's keep talking and those of you in the energy industry I hope you'll move it in the right direction, and encourage investment in the next chapter of energy rather than fighting for the old to make a buck.

And for you industry experts out there, don't forget, it's often the experts who have all the info and then forget to tie their knots...

Still nothing specific from MattG regarding "misinformation" from Gasland--I'm certainly willing to watch any other documentary about the fracking/energy stuff...but I'm dubious about anything produced/funded by the very people making millions off the practice...

Hasn't the past 50 years shown "industry experts" to be biased beyond relevance? Whether it's healthcare, agribusiness, energy, tobacco, plastics...their data have been consistently skewed to maximize profits.

See: cigarettes and cancer, CO2 and climate change, drug risks, etc, etc...

I think we need some non-industry experts to chime in!

Nick Stayner wrote: And Matt- again, what specifically is this "misinformaton, misleading, misinterpreted and skewed data" that you speak of in Gasland?

I too work in the industry as an environmental consultant. I deal only with oil and gas. While there is a lot of good information on the thread there is a lot of mania on here as well. This topic is so political and "hut button" that most of you who do not work directly in the industry in one way or another should consider 50% of your information about as solid as the political commercials you see on TV in October.

Here is the response from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on GasLand and the skewed points they made. http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/Hot_Topics/Hydraulic_Fracturing/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

I admit that Josh Fox made a great movie. It was very entertaining. But in the end it is about as biased and polarizing as any Michael Moore flick. The movie does exactly what it should do, raise awareness and concern for what could be happening. Are all Josh's facts straight, no. Come on, he is talking to people with frozen animals in their freezer! Would you completely trust that person?

Another discrepancy in the movie that makes me laugh every time I see it is when Josh sits down with the landowner and reviews one of the lab reports and tell her how one of the compounds detected is from contamination of the aquifer from oil and gas activity. Little does he know it is simply the surrogate compound that the lab adds to every sample run to analyze quality assurance/quality control protocols on the data. Talk about stirring the pot.

These poor landowners in Weld County have no idea that their wells are completed in an aquifer with coal lenses abundant enough that they were surface mined in areas of Weld County (and Boulder) a long time ago. Some one looks to buy a nice house and the seller doesn't tell them that you can light the water on fire. People have been able to do that in Weld County for 50 years. Not only that, they do it like it is nothing. I have sampled numerous wells and they ask every time if I want to see them do it. It is extremely dangerous. These aren't rocket scientists we're dealing with here.

Anyway, I intended not to type anything as this horse was beaten to death long ago. Any real details to help solve this heated debate are as they say "confidential".

Hopefully this helped supply some of the misleading points Mr. G was referring to. I'm sure there are more for the northeast areas of the movie, I am only very familiar with the Colorado issues. I don't want someone to think I am in the pocket of O&G as this is not true. I deal with facts. I get to see them and collect them everyday. This helps cut through the commercials with crystal clean O&G facilities as well as the ones with oil covered birds. The sad truth is no one listens these days until they are shocked.

In regards to water usage there is not doubt that we all need to conserve where possible. It can take one to five million gallons to frac an O&G well depending on if it is a vertical or horizontal well. In the short season your neighborhood golf course is open they can burn through 35 to 50 million gallons of water on average. Just something worth thinking about. There are companies developing polymers right now that will greatly reduce the total volume of water necessary to frac. Don't worry in the presentation they gave the polymers were made from food grade products. Granted they could inject McDonald's hamburgers and someone would cry pollution.

Sorry for the novel, I'm off to bed.