Gasland

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_619840.html

"...
He begins in Dimock, Pa., where an exploding water well revealed methane contamination that has ruined residents' drinking water supplies. He's handed a jar of mysterious yellow-brown liquid and asked to find out what's in it, setting up the film's principal drama.
From there, Fox heads west. He hears the same story in town after town: contaminated water; fouled air; mysterious illnesses; a deceived citizenry; regulators who aren't regulating.
In Colorado and Wyoming, Fox finds more sings of destruction, according to a Washington Post review:

Mountain streams that now bubble with toxic vapors and a frantic woman who's helpfully kept in her spare freezer all the dead animals she's discovered on her land. Gas wells surround all this...."

People cry about the effects of extracting fossil fuels, the fact is, if they have a car in their driveway and thermostat on their wall, it's their fault too.

The movie sounds like a waste of film and further bolsters my disinterest in the national televised media. Enjoy yourself.

If a gas company offered me $100,000, I'd be happier than the Beverly Hillbillies. Not that I would part with my land for $100,000, but I'd certainly start my own gas company to extract the gas and sell it. Water can be separated out and decontaminated.

"When life hands you lemons, make lemonade."

Many communities rely on well water that contains dissolved methane [[natural gas). From 1927 until 1959, the municipal water supply for the city of Center Line came from a pair of 122 foot deep wells near Ten Mile and Van Dyke. You could fill a glass with that well water and light it off with a match. There were no "environmentally menacing" corporations responsible for that fact, just ancient swamps and marshes - hence the alternate name of "natural" gas. The amount of methane which can be dissolved in water is low and presents no human health hazards when ingested, other than the potentially explosive condition which can be created when drawing large quantities of such water from a tap in an enclosed room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Many communities rely on well water that contains dissolved methane [[natural gas). From 1927 until 1959, the municipal water supply for the city of Center Line came from a pair of 122 foot deep wells near Ten Mile and Van Dyke. You could fill a glass with that well water and light it off with a match. There were no "environmentally menacing" corporations responsible for that fact, just ancient swamps and marshes - hence the alternate name of "natural" gas. The amount of methane which can be dissolved in water is low and presents no human health hazards when ingested, other than the potentially explosive condition which can be created when drawing large quantities of such water from a tap in an enclosed room

---

Yes, but today with hydraulic fracturing, there some 500 chemicals that are being forced into the earth with the high pressure water. Lots of compounds ending in
-ene which are not biodegradable.

http://www.thenation.com/article/363...ector-josh-fox

"Fracking," [[sometimes "fracing") as the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is widely called, bears little resemblance to conventional gas drilling in shallow reserves used to extract natural gas during the twentieth century. As Gasland deftly explains, fracking, which is now the dominant technology in US gas production, is elaborate and risky. Fracking involves extracting billions of gallons of water from lakes and rivers [[2-4 million of gallons per well) and pressure-drilling a mix of the water, sand and chemicals more than a mile down into the earth and then miles horizontally. The sand and chemicals break up the dense rock to release methane, the compound comprising natural gas, which is pumped back up along with the fracking liquid, now infused not only with the chemical additives but heavy metals and radioactive material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

People cry about the effects of extracting fossil fuels, the fact is, if they have a car in their driveway and thermostat on their wall, it's their fault too.

The movie sounds like a waste of film and further bolsters my disinterest in the national televised media. Enjoy yourself.

---

The know-nothing continues to want to know nothing. What a surprise.

The sensationalist continues to sensationalize. Have fun watching your "show" :)

Gasland is a "documentary" that is short on accuracy, long on exaggeration and riddled with false assertions. "Fracking" has been used in the U.S. for about 60 years, initially in the oil patch to extract petroleum and more recently to extract natural gas from shale formations. The formations that undergo fracture are thousands of feet below formations that contain the water that is tapped by wells. The hydraulic fracturing process is heavily regulated not only by the states in which it is used but also by the Federal government. Contrary to the claims made by the filmmaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed with bi-partisan support, including that of then-Senator Barack Obama. There is an element of risk associated with the extraction, processing and use of all forms of energy and they cannot be eliminated, only minimized through prudent regulation and monitoring. I wouldn't waste my time watching Gasland.

Fracking for natural gas is like drilling in the ocean for oil. It's great until there's an accident and then it's a mess. We only seem to respond to disasters. When is the last time some politician asked the U.S. people to conserve energy?

First, the word is "frac" or "fraccing." In over 26 years in the oil and gas exploration and development business, and having fracced at least 150 wells, I have never seen or heard anyone in this business refer to the process as "fracking."

Arianna Huffington should know better. Her deceased husband won the sperm lottery and was a trust baby, whose father made his fortune in the oil business. That ditz would be on welfare if she hadn't inherited all his money.

The Gasland movie has been roundly and thoroughly discredited, factually, although I don't have the cites.

There have been hundreds of thousands of wells, at all depths, fracced in the U.S. during the past 60 years. It is a highly regulated procedure and I have never heard of any credible evidence of any surface or subsurface damage resulting from use of the technology.

A frac consists of injecting gelled water and special sand from mines in IL or in TX into a geologic formation under high pressure. I have never heard of anything remotely akin to a toxic chemical or other substance being used during a frac. It wouldn't be necessary as the force of the water fractures the rock formation and pushes the sand into the formation. The sand remains and is a propping agent which keeps the fractures open and permits the oil and gas to flow more easily to the well bore. The water used in the frac is pumped out and recycled for future use, or in my area of TX, reinjected deep into the ground to waterflood the formation thereby forcing more oil to the well bore. In my waterflood operations I inject well over 20 million gallons of saltwater a day back into he ground. That water had been produced with the oil, separated from the oil, and injected back into the formation thru special injection wells. That water is very salty and very corrosive; it was trapped in the formation up to 500 million years ago and in that respect is as natural as the earth itself.

It is understandable that with the publicity about the BP disaster that people are willing to believe anything negative that they read about the oil business.

Let's see what folks think when gasoline is $5 or $6 a gallon or more in a couple of years. Y'all will be begging for oil companies to drill in your backyards. Frac that baby? Have at it.

yes and the oil companies are what you call a ...what green company....we need alternatives now..not just because of the Gulf ...but because we can't keep destroying and hoping something will change automatically...I do respect 3WCity expertise and knowledge ...a lot more accurate than mine...but when oil starts respecting the variability and vulnerability of their abstraction techniques then maybe you can expand...but imagine this happening in Alaska [[opps not that time)..but an accident on the Tundra...well another dead zone in our world for sure.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lic-fracturing
"...From compressor stations emitting known human carcinogens such as benzene to the poor lining of wells after drilling that has led some water taps to literally spout flames, the full set of activities needed to produce natural gas gives rise to a panoply of potential problems. The EPA study may examine everything from site selection to the ultimate disposal of the fluids used in fracking..."

From your article:

"There's never been a documented case of contaminated water supply."

This sounds like the EPA is taking some data and clutching at straws. If this is an hydraulic process, where water would be just as good as anything else [[considering water will not compress and is an adequate means of transferring force), why on earth would anyone use costly solvents that would do no better than water anyway? They found toxins in a nearby river and they are suspecting it could be from fraccing or fracking? How could they even know this, or better yet, prove it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lic-fracturing
In Dimock's case, Houston-based Cabot Oil and Gas has spilled fracturing fluid, diesel and other fluids, according to Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. And elsewhere in the state fracturing fluid contamination has been detected in the Monongahela River, which is a source of drinking water. In more common practice, companies dump used fracking fluid back beneath the surface, usually injecting it into other formations beneath the shale. For example, in the case of the Barnett Shale, disposal wells send that water into the deeper Ellenburger Formation.

But there's also the problem of what's actually in the fracking fluid. EPA tests in Wyoming have found suspected fracking fluid chemicals in drinking water wells, and a study by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation identified 260 chemicals used in the process—a review undertaken as the state decides whether to allow such drilling on lands comprising the watershed providing New York City with its drinking water. And Dow Chemical notes that it sells biocides—antimicrobial poisons—to be included in the mix. But companies zealously guard the secret of what exactly makes up their individual "special sauce." It is one of the ways the companies distinguish themselves.

This city boy has a stupid question for those of you that rely on well water: what type of filtration do you have and how would you know if there were any colorless, odorless, tasteless contaminants in your water?

[[Too lazy to do a Google search if someone can provide a quick answer.)

I wish big green would stop saying "we need an alternative energy source" and attacking existing energy sources, and start putting thier money where thier mouths are by creating that "alternate energy source".

Think massive wind turbines the size of skyscrapers will replace coal fired power plants?
Then build them.
Time to start walking the walk and not just talking the talk,
while using the talk as an excuse to punish all of us for using the only energy that we have available to us for consumption.

There are some interesting comments on here.

I started in the oil business in 1963 in MI. I primarily drilled in St. Clair County, which has many gas wells, many, producing more gas than the biggest TX wells.

Long before there were gas wells in St. Clair, farmers experienced natural gas in their drinking water. I stood in a farmer's kitchen once and turned on the tap and the gas almost blew the glass out of my hand. Gas, and oil, seep to the surface in many areas of the world. Across the river in Canada, in Petrolia, there continue to be oil seeps that cover the surface with small balls of crude oil. The Indians used it for centuries for medicinal and other purposes.

The northern edge of the Barnett Shale play in north TX is about 20 miles sourth of my leases. I've flown over it many, many times. I know many who have drilled down there. It has been a bonanza to the economy. There are probably a 1000 wells within the city limits of Ft. Worth. Chesapeake paid the DFW airport $276,000,000 for its 17,000 acre lease and drilled 300 wells on the airport property during the past 4 years, wells that cost an average of $4-5 million each.

I subscribe to a trade paper called the Ft. Worth Basin News which focusses on the Barnett Shale play, and recently, on a potentially larger field called the Haynesville Shale in LA. It is true that people have complained about odors and so forth and the State has set up air monitering stations all over the place. There is now a very rigorous inspection program focusing on compressor stations, the facilities that compress the natural gas before it goes in the pipeline. There have been documented cases of pollution from the operation of the comprsssors [[not the natural gas) nad they are shut down immediately until fixed.

It's true as somebody said, that water extracted from the wells is injected deep into the earth into, among others, the Ellenberger formation. That's a thick, vertically fractured limestone formation that will take lots of water. These injection wells have generated much litigation, zoning fights, and so forth. The issue? Way too much truck traffic bringing in the water to the injection wells. Many municipalities restrict the hours during which injection may take place. That's the biggest environmental issue in the Barnett Shale play.

Gibran, I understand your concerns. I've been a Sierra Club member for many years and love and respect the outdoors. However, there must be a balancing of interests. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. I've camped on, hiked across and flown over [[@ 500 feet) the tundra in south Alaska. It's beautiful in its own stark, lonely way. However, the three major Alaskan carribou herds have crossed the tundra for 1000s of years and have worn away millions of acres; they look like depressed superhighways. They do far more damage than a few oil rigs moving about. The environmentalists never show people what vast areas of the tundra actually looks like. And, although I know you won't agree, not one person in 10,000,000 will actually visit the tundra, especially north of Fairbanks where all the oil is, so what's the big deal? Those that do populate that area are probably working for the oil companies. There are very few visitors up there who are tourists but they go up to see the oil operations.

So a part of the world is only useful to the biosphere if tourists want to see it?

Quote:

---

However, the three major Alaskan carribou herds have crossed the tundra for 1000s of years and have worn away millions of acres; they look like depressed superhighways. They do far more damage than a few oil rigs moving about.

---

That reminds me of the argument that where there are no trees, there are no forest fires.

Quote:

---

So a part of the world is only useful to the biosphere if tourists want to see it?

---

Yeah, youre right. I think we should not drill for oil on remote uninhabited lands, and instead should continue to do it in deep water surrounded by fragile ecosystems where the equiptment and piping is so deep underwater that if there happens to be a problem it will be incredibly difficult to fix it!

A friend of mine was just down at Gulf Coast shores Alabama. The ocean during the day has a very visible black film of oil and the Kevin Costner skimmer boats run constantly in front of the hotels trying to keep it from reaching the beach. The efforts are futile, the beach still has a line of crude oil that builds up throughout the day. Nobody swims, or even goes near it. By night, backhoes show up and dig up sand to remove the crude oil and take it away. They are apparently using it to make some sort of road covering/asphalt??.

Maxx: "Biosphere" my ass. Despite all the protestations of the tree-hugging, irrational "environmentalists," the carribou herds love the north slope oil production and processing facilities. There are so many of them around that they constitue a driving hazard. The polar bears in the area are thriving there, unlike the situation in other parts of AK. So, there's a rare but occasional oil spill, quickly remediated. Who cares. Tell me what biosphere damage has been done by oil drilling on the north slope or in the adjacent off-shore waters where most of the new oil is being found.

Your analogy about no trees so no forest fires has no bearing on this discussion as far as I can see. That's like saying that Willie Sutton would never rob one of our many banks which today have no money. [[Willie said he robbed banks because that's where the money is.) You guys want to drive cars? Then you drill for oil where there is some.

"They are apparently using it [[oil soaked beach sand) to make some sort of road covering/asphalt." [[Per Sstashmoo)

See, every cloud has a silver lining.

Oil seems to be everywhere. Do you still think it is a "fossil fuel" ? How many dinosaurs are we supposed to believe there were to produce this stuff?

From Wikipedia:

Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1] The fossil fuels include coal, petroleum, and natural gas which contain high percentages of carbon.
Fossil fuels range from volatile materials with low carbon:hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquid petroleum to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. Methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields, alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates. It is generally accepted that they formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals[2] by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over millions of years.[3] This biogenic theory was first introduced by Georg Agricola in 1556 and later by Mikhail Lomonosov in the 18th century.
It was estimated by the Energy Information Administration that in 2007 primary sources of energy consisted of petroleum 36.0%, coal 27.4%, natural gas 23.0%, amounting to an 86.4% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[4]. Non-fossil sources in 2006 included hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 8.5%, and [[geothermal, solar, tide, wind, wood, waste) amounting 0.9 percent.[5] World energy consumption was growing about 2.3% per year.

Quote:

---

3WC:the carribou herds love the north slope oil production and processing facilities.

---

Maybe they are around that area because that is part of their traditional range area. So someone's done a survey of the herd's opinions of the oil facilities?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...re1/learn.html
"...Scientists aren't sure if activities related to the oil industry have affected the herds in other areas of the slope, but they have observed that there is a tendency for calving females to avoid oil drilling areas. Other effects are still to be discovered, in part by these monitoring efforts. "

Quote:

---

Tell me what biosphere damage has been done by oil drilling on the north slope or in the adjacent off-shore waters where most of the new oil is being found.

---

With every oil spill, there are fewer and fewer places where the oil company can ask that question. Maybe if more money had been spent on mass transit, instead of keeping oil prices low through subsidies, there would be fewer people solely dependent on cars.

And what's wrong with the word biosphere? It reminds you that we're talking about living things and their interdependence.

http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/history.html
The oil industry continues its record of wreckage. Consider that on the North Slope:

• 95% of the area is already open to exploration or development by the oil industry;
• 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides pollute the air each year, more that twice the amount emitted in Washington, DC;
• 500 spills of crude oil, other petroleum products and dozens of other toxic substances occur annually, adding up to 1.9 million gallons spills since 1996;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retroit

This city boy has a stupid question for those of you that rely on well water: what type of filtration do you have and how would you know if there were any colorless, odorless, tasteless contaminants in your water?

[[Too lazy to do a Google search if someone can provide a quick answer.)

---

Generally, sand and plants. Nature does an excellent job of filtering water on its own. Its why springs are so pure. The water is filtered as it soaked into the earth and then it sprouts up from the spring.

New home plans built in well communities require perk testing which is an analysis of the soil layers to see if a septic and well can be placed there. Larger developments in those communities, such as big box stores and condo developments, have requirements for unpaved surface area and drain basins so the land can treat the rain water. Many are also adding tree requirements. If a property can not meet the community standards, its either filled with the deficient soils or more likely remains marginally developed until city water and sewage arrives.

Odorless, colorless, tasteless contaminants are extremely rare so its not a large worry. Country water varies greatly as it sometimes tastes like bottled water and sometimes tastes metallic as metals are found in the ground, but never has the chemical taste found in artifically treated water. Areas such as Kentucky have high lime concentrations which can be beneficial for things such as making bourban. However, communities share water tables, often over several counties, so finding contamination in one home leads the county drain commission to test other homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retroit

This city boy has a stupid question for those of you that rely on well water: what type of filtration do you have and how would you know if there were any colorless, odorless, tasteless contaminants in your water?

[[Too lazy to do a Google search if someone can provide a quick answer.)

---

Where I'm at, there is a lot of iron in the water. I use a water softener to remove the iron and an R.O. system to remove the salt.

There's a water place up the road where you can take your water to have it tested. Also, when we bought the house, by law, the water had to be tested for contaminants. We haven't had any problems with our water so far...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...-27-2010/3188/

Most of the people on the EPA commission who said fracking posed no environmental threat in 2004 had ties to the oil and gas industry. What a surprise.

From a July 2001 article by Jonah Goldberg of National Review, photos of what most of the ANWR really looks like [[click on the numbered links):

A number of people have mentioned that they’d love to see pictures of what the real ANWR looks like. Some people are especially distressed by the pictures in the latest issue of National Geographic that apparently show beautiful mountain vistas and the like. Well, those pictures are accurate, I’m sure, even though I haven’t seen them. They’re just not pictures of the sliver of ANWR where the drilling would be. Unfortunately, I didn’t take a lot of pictures while I was up there, and the ones I took weren’t intended for publication so much as for visual note taking.
Still, I do have a few shots that will give you a sense of what it looks like up there on the coastal plain. They are of mediocre quality — taken from the cockpit of a small, very jerky plane — so don’t give me grief about how I’m no Ansel Adams or how I’m being unfair by showing crappy pictures of what Joe Lieberman calls “one of God’s most awesome creations.” Also, I don’t have time to check against my written notes, so some of these pictures may be of the Prudhoe Bay side of the Canning River, which forms the border of ANWR’s coastal plain. The important thing is that it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the ANWR side and the Prudhoe side without checking my notes and a map.
So, this and this [133, 134] are pictures of one of the spots where the Canning River lets out into the Arctic Ocean. Just beyond it is ANWR. And this and this [144, 145] are pictures of what I believe is a typical oil-loading facility on what amounts to the coastal plain on the Prudhoe side of the Canning River. This [142] is a typical pipeline running over the tundra and so is this [143]. This [140] is what the coastal plain and most of the tundra in Prudhoe look like, complete with the puddles I described. And so is this [141]. And so is this [137]. There some places without the puddles, however [196].
Now, as for the mountains in ANWR: There are many beautiful mountain ranges in this South Carolina-sized wilderness. But the ones closest to the coastal plain are not covered in lush trees, as you might think from looking at the media coverage. This far north it’s too cold, dark, and bleak during the winter for trees to survive. So these mountains are impressive geologically, but — at least from what I saw — they look like barren, massive piles of gravel. For example: [169] [179] [171]. And some have really cool glacier-ice formations on them, like this [178]. But remember, these [180] are still very far from this [150].
I did see some caribou closer than this [150] but I didn’t snap any good pictures. As you can see [151], they are hanging out on the shore of the Arctic Ocean trying to escape the bugs. I like to call the one on the very far left-hand corner Arthur. Speaking of the Arctic Ocean, the ice never really goes away [152]. Here you can see the dividing line between what were two giant sheets of ice [154]. That line is not man-made in any way.

Pure drinking water is a basic fundamental human right.


This contamination is all the more reason to DISTILL your water...drinking or otherwise.

Sure, it is necessary to use Reverse Osmosis for showering and cleaning, because of flow issues, but I'll have nothing but distilled for my consumption.

The experts are wrong to suggest otherwise. The EARTH is a perpetual distillery. Did pretty good, too, until we poisoned the air and everything downstream from the natural collectors.




Both distillation and osmosis eliminate these hydrocarbon issues as well as flouride, which is another poison 'they' have forced upon us. Don't bother arguing, you're just wrong if you apologize for any of it. Period.


There is something deeply wrong with burning hyrdocarbons, but NOT the way the global warming maniacs insist. It is deeper than that, my gut tells me so.

Yes, I do understand I'm part of the problem by continuing driving and natural gas heating...but I cannot see any way to change that easily. Bio-diesel seems the natural choice for long distance, until I can get that Tesla engine to function.


Thanks for the inspiration to get on with that project.

Cheers

"Gasland " has been nominated for an Oscar.

So what. So was Gore's movie.

I hope you aren't surprised. Do you think Hollywood is a Republican, Conservative stronghold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

Do you think Hollywood is a Republican, Conservative stronghold?

---

Certainly not since the Hollywood blacklist. Hey, repression has consequences. Live with it. ;)

Live with i? Gee, I guess I'll have to, but it will be tough.

If Gasland is nominated in the Fantasy category, it may have a chance to win.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...0/game-changer
"A professor in Pennsylvania makes a calculation, to discover that his state is sitting atop a massive reserve of natural gas—enough to revolutionize how America gets its energy. But another professor in Pennsylvania does a different calculation and reaches a troubling conclusion: that getting natural gas out of the ground poses a risk to public health..."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_829048.html
"...Scott Ausbrooks, geohazards supervisor for the Arkansas Geological Survey, told the AP that geologists believe the seismic activity is either a naturally occurring swarm, or could be related to natural gas exploration in the region. According to Ausbrooks, geologists don't believe production wells are the problem, but haven't ruled out injection wells that dispose of "fracking" wastewater as a culprit. The earthquakes have been occurring near several injection wells..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72298.html

Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to film a House Science Committee hearing on hydraulic fracturing.
Fox was led out in handcuffs by the Capitol police shortly after 10 a.m., before the hearing could be gaveled into order. The "Gasland" director was attempting to film the hearing looking into EPA's investigation of potential water contamination from natural gas drilling in Pavillion, Wyo


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1lXeEdIDm

We desperately need to develop alternative energy. We also need to utilize fossil fuels. World population is growing rapidly and we're going to need to face it head on and in an intelligent way. Why are we so hell bent on using up all the fossil fuels? There are [[hopefully) going to be other people living on this planet for some time to come.
If we could slow down the usage of carbon based fuels it might slow down the emissions to a point where we're not doing so much damage to the planet.

If you don't think that alternative energy can ever become a reality, then why would you want to burn up all the fossil fuels so quickly? Leave the problem for future generations to figure out?

How many generations will be able to survive the raising of the average world temp by 4 or 5 degrees? And that could happen by the end of this century. Watch Powering the Planet online at 60 Minutes on CNBC, the last part about Antartica.