GSO/Guilford Pols

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Trust me | Main | Lawerying up »

Apr 21, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef01538e07899b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fraccidents happen:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kim

Proprietary process, don't you know, you can't reveal your trade secrets.

Billy Jones

The Fracking idiots have it all under control just like they did a year ago in the Gulf. Get a job and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing!

RBM

For those who missed the additional links offered in the Bloomberg piece, the page FracFocus can be reached.

Some arbitrary quotes I found interesting:

- This website is a joint project of the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
- The public information portion of the website interfaces directly with the well fracturing information uploaded by the operators.
- The primary purpose of this site is to provide factual information concerning hydraulic fracturing and groundwater protection. It is not intended to argue either for or against the use of hydraulic fracturing as a technology. It is also not intended to provide a scientific analysis of risk associated with hydraulic fracturing. Finally, this site does not deal with issues unrelated to chemical use in hydraulic fracturing such as Naturally Occuring Radioactive Material (NORM).

In short this site fails my goal of determining risk via scientific analysis.

Nitpick: Note the typo.

polifrog

Here is a general description.


Water makes up the lion’s share—98 to 99%—of most hydraulic fracturing fluid mixtures, according to various sources. But once the fluid forces open a crack in the rock, something else in the fluid needs to keep it from collapsing. For that purpose, engineers use ordinary silica, or sand. Sand, with its fine grains, allows natural gas to seep through to the surface while holding the crack open.

To keep the sand suspended in the fluid, engineers add a variety of substances that increase the fluid’s viscosity; gels such as guar gum or hydroxyethyl cellulose are one option. Isopropyl alcohol, which acts as a surfactant, is also used to increase viscosity.

This thick fluid has to move smoothly through pipes without clinging to the sides. Polyacrylamide, mineral oil, and even diesel oil add the needed slipperiness.

Various acids, such as sulfuric, hydrochloric, and citric, help dissolve minerals and protect the pipes from scale formation. The common antifreeze ethylene glycol, as well as dimethylformamide (CH3)2NC(O)H, helps prevent pipe corrosion, and ammonium bisulfite scavenges oxygen from the fluid.

Engineers must also contend with microbes because some organisms thrive in the warm, watery environment generated during fracturing, producing slimy masses that gum up and corrode pipes. Engineers therefore treat the fracturing fluids with “biocides,” generally toxic compounds that are registered with EPA as antimicrobial pesticides. One commonly used compound, glutaraldehyde, CH2(CH2CHO)2, a medical and dental disinfectant, kills microbes by cross-linking their proteins.


RBM

General descriptions are not rigorous scientific analysis, by definition.

For water quality concerns I prefer additional rigorousness.

Billy Jones

"diesel oil"

What in blazes is diesel oil? Diesel Fuel? High sulfur? Low sulfur? On road? Off road? #1 or #2? Motor oil formulated and rated for Diesel engines? Synthetic? Organic? #2 Fuel oil? Kerosene? Used motor oil? Marvel Mystery Oil? Fuel conditioner? Vegetable oil? Castor oil? I've heard all these things mistakenly called Diesel oil when in fact there is no such thing as Diesel oil.

Talk about general descriptions-- terms like Diesel oil are about as vague as you can get.

polifrog

That was the point behind labeling the comment as general.

However, considering the general nature of the post's question:

How can we know that our water is safe from fracking chemicals if we don't know what the fracking chemicals are?

some general background information seemed called for.

That background information suggests site to site comparisons might prove quite difficult as the geology from site to site varies and that those differences in geology dictate different compositions of "fracking" fluid.

Therefore rigorous analysis of the drilling accident referenced in the post may prove of little value in North Carolina.


Additionally, the rigorous analysis we desire requires considerable geographical knowledge of the areas to be drilled before even considering the what might constitute the "fracking" fluids used.

Unfortunately, in North Carolina we only have general information regarding the geographic constraints paced upon the "fracking" fluid composition. This will seriously restrain the rigorous analysis you seem to be interested in.


I found this part interesting:

Engineers must also contend with microbes because some organisms thrive in the warm, watery environment generated during fracturing, producing slimy masses that gum up and corrode pipes. Engineers therefore treat the fracturing fluids with “biocides,” generally toxic compounds that are registered with EPA as antimicrobial pesticides. One commonly used compound, glutaraldehyde, CH2(CH2CHO)2, a medical and dental disinfectant, kills microbes by cross-linking their proteins.

Billy Jones

You're a frog, are fracking fluids something you'd want to swim and spawn in?

Fred Gregory

We know what is inside the CFL bulb but that didn't stop the idiocy of banning the incandescent

They contain cancer causing elements which are being emitted into your den while turned on and eventually in to your syatem

Billy Jones

Fred, I agree, the BS about the light bulbs was BS and should have never been pushed down our throats but when you consider that laws have been written at the Federal level ("Halliburton Loophole") to keep secret what chemicals are used in fracking fluids I can't help but wonder?

Besides, when you consider that the Feds pushed the lightbulb thing through with hardly a concern that we might be poisoned how can you not worry that Federal laws to protect the ingredients of fracking fluids might just be more of the same?

By the way, GE, who had a very big hand in the light bulb thing also makes lots of chemicals used by the mining and drilling industry.

Be afraid, Fred, be very afraid for your grand children. Their world will no doubt be more toxic than ours.

polifrog

You're a frog, are fracking fluids something you'd want to swim and spawn in?

What I find interesting is that antimicrobial insecticides are used at all.


polifrog
We know what is inside the CFL bulb but that didn't stop the idiocy of banning the incandescent


Agreed, but the same people who pushed for and tolerate toxic light bulbs are the same people who wish to hinder powering them due to a lack of rigorous analysis of toxins elsewhere.

This is the result of ideology run rampant between science and government funding.

Billy Jones

"What I find interesting is that antimicrobial insecticides are used at all. "

I'm not at all surprised. Lots of organisms thrive in environments that would kill people or frogs in just minutes. Can't have anything stopping up the well.

polifrog
I'm not at all surprised.

Neither am I surprised for the same reasons, but it is interesting nonetheless considering the hyperventilating over the unknown toxins with unknown affects in "fracking" fluid.

Perhaps "fracking" fluid is not as toxic as some would have us to believe.

And:

Can't have anything stopping up the well.
Agreed. Considering the cost of petroleum and the impact those rising costs have on the economy fouled wells would simply drive up the cost of petroleum thus weakening the economy and our ability to afford environmentalism as we know it.
RBM

The problem of each well site's unique recipe can adequately be addressed by disclosure of all potential chemicals used in a the general process.

With that group specified interactions between each chemical and then the impact to the watershed can be determined.

polifrog

The problem of each well site's unique recipe can adequately be addressed by disclosure of all potential chemicals used in a the general process.

With that group specified interactions between each chemical and then the impact to the watershed can be determined.

Unfortunately we do not know the locations of each well in NC as they do not yet exist. We therefore can not extrapolate the possible chemicals used.

Furthermore extrapolating the possible mixture used in the drilling process from a grab bag of "all potential chemicals used in a the general process" does not appear to be "rigorous scientific analysis".

Until more is known it seems that a general approach is all that is possible.

RBM

!. You missed the point.

2. What's not scientifically rigorous about chemical engineering ?

polifrog

Your quotes answer both 1 and 2.

General descriptions are not rigorous scientific analysis, by definition.

Vs.

The problem of each well site's unique recipe can adequately be addressed by disclosure of all potential chemicals used in a the general process.
Billy Jones

"Furthermore extrapolating the possible mixture used in the drilling process from a grab bag of "all potential chemicals used in a the general process" does not appear to be "rigorous scientific analysis".

Frogface, you're dancing around the questions in your thinly veiled and vain attempts to catch flies. We don't even have a list of all the potential chemicals used in any fracking process. We understand that each well is different but no one has told us what is being used in wells in states other than North Carolina.

Is a straight answer beyond your mental capabilities you slimy excuse for an amphibian?

Billy Jones

ROTFLMAO! you wart faced, tailless little toad!

polifrog
We don't even have a list of all the potential chemicals used in any fracking process. We understand that each well is different but no one has told us what is being used in wells in states other than North Carolina.


I appreciate your help in making my point that a general approach is currently the only one available.


And: An example of a sore looser:
Posted by: pseudonymous racist cowards for exchange of ideas | Apr 21, 2011 at 11:08

Yes, I agree, yet another win for polifrog.

RBM
Yes, I agree, yet another win for polifrog.
-Poli

Obviously you do not dialog is Good Faith.

I do, so I'll have no more to say to you.

polifrog
Obviously you do not dialog is Good Faith.

What do you mean? Was the Apr 21, 2011 at 11:08 comment not yours?

I had assumed that it was. If that assumption was wrong, I am sorry.

Roch101

"Obviously you do not dialog is Good Faith."

Bingo!

polifrog


I just realized "is" was probably intended to be "in".

Obviously you do not dialog is Good Faith.


Do you have any evidence of this. If it is so obvious, it should not be a problem to point to an example. Of course, accusations without evidence does seem to be acceptable among the like minded within this group.

I would point out that disagreement is not evidence of a lack of good faith in dialog.

JustCorbly

1. The 98-99 percent water notion is bogus, even if true. The concern is about health-threatening chemicals. Their capacity to harm and kill us is the issue.

2. Last night's CSI was a repeat about fracking in Nevada killing people. I assume most corporatist shills turned it off.

polifrog
1. The 98-99 percent water notion is bogus, even if true. The concern is about health-threatening chemicals. Their capacity to harm and kill us is the issue.

I question that percentage as well. It does not leave much room for "thickening agents", acids, antibacterials, diesel oil and sand.

Roch101

"Do you have any evidence of this." - 28

Yes. You labeling a simple statement of fact, that water not reclaimed from the ground remains in the ground, an "extremist argument." It was neither extremist nor an argument. Good faith discussions rely on the parties' acknowledging the facts. Refusing to acknowledge a fact to deny a premise for an argument you suspect may be forthcoming is not good faith participation. It's childish.

polifrog

I see. Thank you for the reply.

You labeling a simple statement of fact, that water not reclaimed from the ground remains in the ground , an "extremist argument." It was neither extremist nor an argument.

I agree with you that water not reclaimed from the ground remains in the ground, that it is a fact (I never considered it otherwise) and that none of this constitutes an argument.

However, that is not the argument (or non argument) that I understood you and Steve Harrison to be making.

It seemed to me that you and Steve were claiming that sequestering "franking fluids" was dangerous because the process was removing water from the water cycle or as Steve called it the hydrological cycle. The hydrological cycle is a global phenomenon.

When one compares the total volume of the water in the hydrological cycle (which Steve and yourself claimed would suffer due to the permanent sequestering of "fracking" water) to the volume of water that may be lost due to "fracking", the amount of lost water is nearly negligible.

Stoking worry over a nearly negligible amount of lost water is what seemed extremist to me.

I'm sorry I was so deeply misunderstood.

Fred Gregory

Polifrog,

These are the kind of environmentalists we should listen to, if any, not the lunatics in this neighborhood.

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility

"In the fall of 2004, two young environmentalists, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, triggered a firestorm of controversy with their essay, 'The Death of Environmentalism.' In it they argued that the politics that dealt with acid rain and smog can't deal with global warming. Society has changed, and our politics have not kept up. Environmentalism must die, they concluded, so that something new can be born. Now, three years later, Break Through delivers on the authors' promise to articulate a new politics for a new century, one focused on aspirations, not complaints, human possibility, not limits.
If environmentalists and progressives are to seize the moment offered by the collapse of the Bush presidency, they must break from the politics of limits, and grapple with some inconvenient truths of their own. The old pollution and conservation paradigms have failed. The nations that ratified the Kyoto protocol have seen their greenhouse gas emissions go up, not down. And tropical rain forest deforestation has accelerated.

What the new ecological crises demand is not that we constrain human power but unleash it. Overcoming global warming demands not pollution control but rather a new kind of economic development. We cannot tear down the old energy economy before building the new one. The invention of the Internet and microchips, the creation of the space program, the birth of the European Union--those breakthroughs were only made possible by big and bold investments in the future."

Billy Jones

WTF is Diesel Oil?

Until the fracking idiots can give us lists of ingredients THAT ACTUALLY EXIST there is no way the fracking idiots can be taken seriously.

Roch101

"which Steve and yourself (sic) claimed would suffer due to the permanent sequestering of "fracking" water" -- 28

One more time, no I did not. This is another example of not debating in good faith: not paying attention or intentionally misrepresenting another person's statements in order to argue against a straw man of your own creation.

My observations did not go beyond noting that unclaimed water remains in the ground and that, as a percentage of the world's available fresh water, it is likely a small portion. Yet, through your inattention, generalizations, projections, straw men and mischaracterizations, you necessitated that the conversation derail into one of how to debate in good faith, which may not be a bad thing, but it's not the discussion about the environmental effects of fracking we had started briefly. I remain convinced that were you to attach your identity to your comments, you would avoid these distractions.

polifrog

In rereading the handful of comments prior to my first in the "Query" thread I see that you only referenced a "cycle" and that that it was another who questioned what that cycle was and that it was Steve who defined it as the "hydrological cycle".

It seems you are arguing that you were not taking part in Steve's argument.

I accept your position that you were not arguing the same argument Steve did and remove you from my counter argument.

However, my argument was not put forth in bad faith and rests on these facts.

1) Steve's use of the term "hydrological cycle".
2) The definition of the term "hydrological cycle" that I have referenced.
3) Steve used the term "hydrological cycle" in reference to the sequestering of "fracking" water.
4) Steve commented:

Ergo, it's a one-way trip. Even without aquifer contamination concerns, that (continual) removal of millions of gallons of water from the hydrologic cycle is unwise, to say the least.

Your charge that I put forth arguments in bad faith requires you to deny one or more of the facts above which puts you in the position of arguing disingenuously yourself.

Roch101

"Your charge that I put forth arguments in bad faith requires you to deny one or more of the facts above which puts you in the position of arguing disingenuously yourself." -- 28

No it doesn't. You are now saying, you did not argue in bad faith if one only looks at the arguments that were not in bad faith, which is itself, more bad faith arguing -- and a waste of time.

polifrog
You are now saying, you did not argue in bad faith if one only looks at the arguments that were not in bad faith, which is itself, more bad faith arguing -- and a waste of time.

So, you deny all facts I put forth while embracing the accusation of inattention, generalizations, projections, straw men and mischaracterizations on my part while pointing to no facts yourself.

This defines you as a wast of time.


Lying racist pseudonymous moron coward John Hayes... (I mean DOCTOR John Hayes)

Poli, I forgot,
rule #37: (page 15, chapter 2)
When Roch pulls his Straw Man cord, which is painfully early and often, you can rest assured that the veins are bulging in his reddening temples, and your work here is done.

I apologize for the omission.
Just trying to cut down on your time waste.

Steve Harrison

"it was Steve who defined it as the "hydrological cycle"."

No, I didn't. It may seem trivial to point this out, but there is no "al" at the end of hydrologic.

And I don't mean to knock your Wikipedia legs out from under you, but the hydrologic cycle is both a global and a localized phenomenon, the latter being (by far) the most important issue affecting people's lives.

The drain and sequestration of water for fracking is only one of several issues, and it's a relative one; not much fracking, not much water loss. But we still need to keep an eye on it.

Billy Jones

Wartface,

WTF is Diesel Oil?

And how about links to some data from someone who isn't a lobbying organization for the petroleum industry?

Ed Cone

Billy, there's a link to more specific details of fracking chemicals in this post.

Billy Jones

Ed, I was looking at that link while you were posting your last remark above. Without a lot more info it isn't of much value.

Ed Cone

Billy, I've been unable to pinpoint the broken well by latitude and longitude, but there is plenty of information to be gleaned from those PDFs as to what's going down those holes, and also the maximum amounts of particular chemicals allowed, and the variance from one well to another.

Roch101

"So, you deny all facts I put forth while embracing the accusation of inattention, generalizations, projections, straw men and mischaracterizations on my part while pointing to no facts yourself." -- 28

Now you are just being an idiot. I have not denied any facts you put forth, much less "all," and, as we just went through, I did indeed put forth a rather simple and self-evident fact, but you rejected it as an "extremist argument" for days. Carry on this way if you insist, but you will no longer get any replies from me when you dive into the insipid. I've wasted far too much time with your ideologically aligned and similarly logic-deficient brethren on this blog for the sake of nothing better than a lesson well learned. You will continue to demonstrate the lack of wisdom behind your positions quite well without me.

polifrog
It may seem trivial to point this out, but there is no "al" at the end of hydrologic.

It's not trivial. Thank you.

As for the hydrologic cycle, I am willing to use the definition you choose as the term was used by you in your argument. However, I do not believe my argument should be labeled disingenuous due to my reading "hydrologic cycle" as it is commonly defined rather than having inferred your rather loose definition of the term.

 lackey monkey moron dolt idiot willful denier of objective reality John Hayes

Meltdown complete. Well done Grasshopper.

polifrog

Billy:

Wartface,

WTF is Diesel Oil?

And how about links to some data from someone who isn't a lobbying organization for the petroleum industry?


It appears to be some kind of petroleum based lubricant. It could be diesel fuel, as diesel fuel is a refined form of crude oil and retains an oilyness that enhances the longevity of diesel powered engines.

I'm not sure it much matters, though, considering that its original natural source was within the Earth in the first place

You clearly do not want oil pumped into the ground, but doing so in most sites results on more oil being removed from the ground than what is pumped in so the net result is a positive from your perspective... less oil in the ground.

In NC the result is slightly different. It seems that pumping a naturally produced albeit refined petroleum into an underground location already laden with naturally produced natural gas in its natural location with the end goal of more being removed than put in should result in fewer petroleum based chemicals in the ground and a net positive from your perspective.

Instead, my concern would be in the use of "biocides". I would hope they have a limited "half-life" much like the new termite insecticides. I would also have a greater concern for the acids, than the diesel oil, even though I suspect that the acids are absorbed by the underground geology.

JustCorbly

South Africa has suspended Shell's plan to use fracking in the Great Karoo, pending an environmental impact review. Maybe we ought to import some of their legislators.

Of course, Shell might decide to slip some money ito a few pockets.It's a tried and true method.

polifrog

Roch101:

..as we just went through, I did indeed put forth a rather simple and self-evident fact, but you rejected it as an "extremist argument" for days.

This concept is one that can only be referenced in your words as I never rejected the fact you reference.

bubba

"You will continue to demonstrate the lack of wisdom behind your positions quite well without me."

Translation: Roch has nothing of value to support his position, which results in the nonsense we see in this thread.

Business as usual.....

 John Hayes

"Roch has nothing of value to support his position"

uhmmm, and what was his position again?...

The comments to this entry are closed.