4 ms·

"The research paints a picture of unsafe practices including the dumping of drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical concentrations

"The research paints a picture of unsafe practices including the dumping of drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical concentrations in unlined pits and a lack of adequate cement barriers to protect groundwater." ... So it isn't the fracking per se, but toxic waste disposal and leaking in transit.

bedhead 11y ago
Shhhh, that's not consistent with the "narrative"
tomkat0789 11y ago
Yes. As I understand it (chemical engineer, not a petroleum engineer), fracking for oil and gas (in addition to normal oil drilling) is USUALLY done thousands of feet below the water table. For some reason here they were fracking at a much shallower depth, in addition to doing things like "dumping of drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical concentrations in unlined pits" (from TFA). Fracking is like setting a bomb off underground, but you can imagine there being something a city block or two of solid rock between where the bomb's going off and the water table.
avenueb 11y ago
..as a result of fracking..
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  "cement barriers" are not fracking. It's general to all drilling and oilfield operations.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  But keep in mind that many forms of drilling use these tailings ponds to deal with contaminated water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands_tailings_ponds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands_tailings_ponds
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    There exist portable treatment plants that solve the whole problem, should prices ever return to allow their use again.
  - hanniabu 11y ago
    That doesn't make it okay
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  ...in an unsafe manner... The statements by the researchers are intended to give the impression that fracking is inherently dangerous. Their data do not back that up; rather, their data show that fracking is a process that can be very dangerous and environmentally damaging when not done properly and regulated to ensure it is done properly.
  - malyk 11y ago
    Except without any regulation or enforcement there is no incentive or companies to care about the environmental impact. So yes, if you do fracking nicely and care about the impact then there is no problem. The reality is that no one involved in fracking cares and it's all about the bottom line so screw the environment. But yes, it's totally safe otherwise.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      > Except without any regulation or enforcement there is no incentive or companies to care about the environmental impact. I specifically said, "and regulated to enforce it". > The reality is that no one involved in fracking cares and it's all about the bottom line so screw the environment. That is not the reality, and I challenge you to demonstrate that.
hughw 11y ago
Pavilion is a pathological case. It's the rare area where producible oil is only hundreds of feet below the surface, at the same depths as groundwater [1]. All other plays of interest in the US are one to two miles deep. It's irresponsible to permit fracking in Pavilion. At the same time, polluting groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles below the surface. [1] http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-blame-elsewhere-but-in-pavillion-it-s/article_0290f527-b30f-512b-a6d0-95854dde38c8.html http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-blame-e...
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Oh. Yeah, that's Bad then. I would heartily agree - they should then not do that.
- tremon 11y ago
  polluting groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles below the surface Still, this is an excellent example to point out that current regulation fails.
  - barney54 11y ago
    At best it shows that regulation in Wyoming failed. And even then there is debate: http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-repackage-epas-discredited-fracking-study-pavillion/ http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-rep...
    - tremon 11y ago
      There is always "debate" when an industry's profits are involved.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- yuzi 11y ago
  As I understand it shale formations holding petroleum are often 500 to 1000 feet down. Add that these are also fracked horizontally over hundreds of feet as well and I'll suggest there's a real worry to deal with. I also think there are too many people in the industry relying upon information derived from older history and not taking into account just how different fracking really is under the shale revolution.
samstave 11y ago
Growing up my dads best friend was CEO of Alcoa... And there has long been the debate about fluoride in water. I was told that fluoride is a by product of aluminum production, and it is extraordinarily toxic/acidic... They can't dispose of it... So they found that small quantities in water wasn't toxic, per se, but helped with "tooth health" - but what I was told next stayed with me to this day "what better place to store it than in your liver"... The earth is a lot more - but it's certainly the liver of humanity. Basically they use toxic waste to force out the profitable product.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  If one glass of beer makes you feel good but having too much can kill you, does one ban beer? Fluoride is basic, not acidic (H-F has a specially strong covalent bond) and the ion used as the source of fluoride in dental supplementation is not usually straight fluoride. Furthermore, the beneficial concentration is very different from the one which is toxic.
  - samstave 11y ago
    That wasnt my point... My point was that you take toxic waste, Flouride, and distribute it amongst a massive population of deposits (people) - even if its beneficial.. and you find a way to dispose of waste. I personally dont have an opinion on the safety of fluoride in water - I just know that in the early 80s this is what I heard hanging around the CEO of ALCOA...
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      They're not the same thing.
      - samstave 11y ago
        Finding a novel way of storing a bunch of toxic waste spread all across everything is the same thing. Fracking fluids can basically be made from anything, so just randomly pumping random chemicals into the ground to store them there is the same as spreading the volume of aluminum production byproducts across a vast population is the same thing. Further, with respect to fluoride - like I said, the CEO of Alcoa said this to my dad... So that comment holds some fucking merit.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>.. So it isn't the fracking per se, but toxic waste disposal and leaking in transit. Which is terrible but also easily controlled through technology and regulation.

bedhead 11y ago

Shhhh, that's not consistent with the "narrative"

tomkat0789 11y ago

Yes. As I understand it (chemical engineer, not a petroleum engineer), fracking for oil and gas (in addition to normal oil drilling) is USUALLY done thousands of feet below the water table. For some reason here they were fracking at a much shallower depth, in addition to doing things like "dumping of drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical concentrations in unlined pits" (from TFA). Fracking is like setting a bomb off underground, but you can imagine there being something a city block or two of solid rock between where the bomb's going off and the water table.

avenueb 11y ago

..as a result of fracking..

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
"cement barriers" are not fracking. It's general to all drilling and oilfield operations.
maerF0x0 11y ago
But keep in mind that many forms of drilling use these tailings ponds to deal with contaminated water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands_tailings_ponds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands_tailings_ponds
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  There exist portable treatment plants that solve the whole problem, should prices ever return to allow their use again.
- hanniabu 11y ago
  That doesn't make it okay
vonmoltke 11y ago
...in an unsafe manner... The statements by the researchers are intended to give the impression that fracking is inherently dangerous. Their data do not back that up; rather, their data show that fracking is a process that can be very dangerous and environmentally damaging when not done properly and regulated to ensure it is done properly.
- malyk 11y ago
  Except without any regulation or enforcement there is no incentive or companies to care about the environmental impact. So yes, if you do fracking nicely and care about the impact then there is no problem. The reality is that no one involved in fracking cares and it's all about the bottom line so screw the environment. But yes, it's totally safe otherwise.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    > Except without any regulation or enforcement there is no incentive or companies to care about the environmental impact. I specifically said, "and regulated to enforce it". > The reality is that no one involved in fracking cares and it's all about the bottom line so screw the environment. That is not the reality, and I challenge you to demonstrate that.

hughw 11y ago

Pavilion is a pathological case. It's the rare area where producible oil is only hundreds of feet below the surface, at the same depths as groundwater [1]. All other plays of interest in the US are one to two miles deep. It's irresponsible to permit fracking in Pavilion. At the same time, polluting groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles below the surface. [1] http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-blame-elsewhere-but-in-pavillion-it-s/article_0290f527-b30f-512b-a6d0-95854dde38c8.html http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-blame-e...

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Oh. Yeah, that's Bad then. I would heartily agree - they should then not do that.
tremon 11y ago
polluting groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles below the surface Still, this is an excellent example to point out that current regulation fails.
- barney54 11y ago
  At best it shows that regulation in Wyoming failed. And even then there is debate: http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-repackage-epas-discredited-fracking-study-pavillion/ http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-rep...
  - tremon 11y ago
    There is always "debate" when an industry's profits are involved.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
yuzi 11y ago
As I understand it shale formations holding petroleum are often 500 to 1000 feet down. Add that these are also fracked horizontally over hundreds of feet as well and I'll suggest there's a real worry to deal with. I also think there are too many people in the industry relying upon information derived from older history and not taking into account just how different fracking really is under the shale revolution.

samstave 11y ago

Growing up my dads best friend was CEO of Alcoa... And there has long been the debate about fluoride in water. I was told that fluoride is a by product of aluminum production, and it is extraordinarily toxic/acidic... They can't dispose of it... So they found that small quantities in water wasn't toxic, per se, but helped with "tooth health" - but what I was told next stayed with me to this day "what better place to store it than in your liver"... The earth is a lot more - but it's certainly the liver of humanity. Basically they use toxic waste to force out the profitable product.

selimthegrim 11y ago
If one glass of beer makes you feel good but having too much can kill you, does one ban beer? Fluoride is basic, not acidic (H-F has a specially strong covalent bond) and the ion used as the source of fluoride in dental supplementation is not usually straight fluoride. Furthermore, the beneficial concentration is very different from the one which is toxic.
- samstave 11y ago
  That wasnt my point... My point was that you take toxic waste, Flouride, and distribute it amongst a massive population of deposits (people) - even if its beneficial.. and you find a way to dispose of waste. I personally dont have an opinion on the safety of fluoride in water - I just know that in the early 80s this is what I heard hanging around the CEO of ALCOA...
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    They're not the same thing.
    - samstave 11y ago
      Finding a novel way of storing a bunch of toxic waste spread all across everything is the same thing. Fracking fluids can basically be made from anything, so just randomly pumping random chemicals into the ground to store them there is the same as spreading the volume of aluminum production byproducts across a vast population is the same thing. Further, with respect to fluoride - like I said, the CEO of Alcoa said this to my dad... So that comment holds some fucking merit.

forgetsusername 11y ago

>.. So it isn't the fracking per se, but toxic waste disposal and leaking in transit. Which is terrible but also easily controlled through technology and regulation.