SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Andrew Higgins reports in the NYT that Romanian officials including the prime minister point to a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protests over fracking in Europe and are pointing their fingers at Russia's Gazprom, a state-controlled energy giant, that has a clear interest in preventing countries dependent on Russian natural gas from developing their own alternative supplies of energy and preserving a lucrative market for itself — and a potent foreign policy tool for the Kremlin.
“Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas,” says NATO’s former secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
A wave of protest against fracking began three years ago in Bulgaria, a country highly dependent on Russian energy. Faced with a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues, the Bulgarian government in 2012 banned fracking and canceled a shale gas license issued earlier to Chevron.
Russia itself has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Putin declaring last year that fracking “poses a huge environmental problem.” Places that have allowed it, he said, “no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime.” For their part Green groups have been swift to attack Rasmussen’s views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability. “The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ,” says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday December 06 2014, @09:17PM
Same as the research that cigarettes doesn't affect health in any bad way?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:37PM
Possibly, but the government was never behind those smoking studies, whereas they are often the authors in the case of faking.
The USGS has also pointed to fraking as a source of earthquakes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:13AM
All of those links you pointed to earlier are outright disingenuous arguments and lies.
Disclaimer: I've been in and around the industry.
They are not fracking anything, and I'm not sure that most of those US departments you outlined even have access to the data. I note particularly that from Texas a doctor spoke, but we didn't hear from the Railroad Commission [state.tx.us]. Everything under the ground, their specific plans and activities, and the results are largely trade secret and protected information. It's made so private simply because competing oil & gas companies can gain tremendous advantages by learning from their rivals expensive attempts at geological reconnaissance. So when I see a US department listed, it means absolutely bupkis to me unless they have access to the trade secret information protected by law. In actuality, none of the departments listed could probably find anything out on their own. It requires the cooperation of the specific regulatory department for that state, and for Texas, it's the same department that controls the railroads.
Meaningless drivel until the sentence in bold. This is why I say the arguments are disingenuous at best. Even Dr. Jackson is quick to point out that his statement only supports fracking in these specific conditions. Such statements only raise the question: Is what the oild & gas companies doing considered fracking in the technical sense?
No. It isn't. Not anymore.
I've met the man. Dr. Holditch isn't lying, but I have to question if he has even seen the logistics, plans, and specific formations and 3D seismic for the wells in question. While he is right that the process itself is so far from dangerous that structural damage to water tables and aquifers is ridiculous, he is only referring to the process itself.
Completely missing the point, and once again, just a debased tactic in an argument. Also, not correct either. It's not sand in most cases, and CANNOT be sand at the depths mentioned in many of the references included. It MUST be proppant, as proppant is manufactured to maintain a spherical shape in the presence of tremendous heat and pressures. You use sand on SHALLOW formations CLOSER to WATER TABLES. Sand is cheap, and it sucks. Truly not fit for purpose in most cases where fracking is desired to increase permeability.
Of COURSE the chemicals themselves are not that bad. Which, it's incredibly salient at this point to state the RECOVERY procedures used for such "safe" chemicals. We have to suck it all up back out of the ground. The EPA doesn't let you push that many gallons of crap down in the ground without an idea of how it's sequestered and monitored. We spend good money, a lot of it, paying for collection tanks and trucks to haul it off.
If you're seeing fracking chemicals in the water, in any amount, YOU HAVE FAILED IN YOUR FRACK, YOU HAVE FAILED TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE CASING, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO SECURE THE FORMATION FOR PRODUCTION.
Blah, blah, blah, trade secrets tie our hands....
See? Not even the studies are worth a damn precisely because they don't represent all cases of fracking, and not all cases of fracking have data available for scientists.
Dr. Zoback needs to ask himself the question, "Are they performing a classical frac?" Here we come to crux of the entire argument. Unlike Dr. Zoback, I've actually seen real data from one of these "fracs" (not one I was involved with), and it showed a monstrous disrespect for ethics, science, and every regulation in the book. They are not fracking, sir. Performing near continuous fracking in the ways I have seen would instantly lead Dr. Zoback to conclude that they are effectively destroying the formations and water tables to suck up natural gas, all for greed.
The unanswered question in the subject? The motivation?
What's the ROI on a standard well? Does anyone here have any idea how fast the production falls? The reason we are having these arguments is that natural gas wells are not strong producers. Flow can be quick, but within a year it's all but gone in terms of pressure. It can take 20 years or more to properly recover hydrocarbons from a well .
The motivation is simply to pull the money out of the ground faster, and is no more ethically or culturally complicated than any of the other shortsighted behaviors we see corporations performing every single day. In this case, it will be the water tables poisoned across most of our nation by the time it's done with hundreds of years of waiting (if ever) for them to recover. In other cases, it's Wall Street stealing Main Street blind and evicting a good portion of Americans out of their houses. Not complicated, it's just shortsightedness and greed. Standard. Operating. Procedure.
Don't be fooled by the media, or these studies. Fracking is 100% perfectly safe, and I will never say otherwise. Their "Fracs" are harming the environment in the face of such truths. Therefore, they aren't fracking and something else simply must be going on. No, I can't prove any of it, precisely because all of that information is trade secret and well protected by law. If I could get my hands on any of it, I will be a whistleblower for sure.
If there is any one thing I wish for people to believe, it's that fracking really is 100% safe. It truly is. Just don't believe they are doing it please.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:55AM
Why not simple sample the water around the fracking well? or simple take when no one notice regarding these fracking fluids? and send it for chemical analyze?
Anyway it seems we have polluting psychopathic Wall street people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Sunday December 07 2014, @06:44AM
The water directly around the well might actually be contaminated to some small degree. Drilling and oil & gas well is an amazing process, and extraordinarily dirty. It's not a question of finding the chemicals really. We can just assume that fracking chemicals and worse are present within a couple hundred feet of the well. By worse, I mean the long sequestered hydrocarbons themselves (maybe some drilling fluids). I was always told to not get that on your hands or let it stay on them. Wash it off right away. Basically, I think you will get almost nothing but false positives measuring it this strictly.
My educated guess is that the complaints mostly surround not the fracking fluids themselves, but other hydrocarbons interacting with the water supply. Which it's a good time to remember that the whole point of drilling is recovery. So a proper well with good casing should have nothing more being introduced into the environment. Failures usually indicate a problem in the lines that need to be addressed, and soon. How much of this is not from already completed wells with all of their lines connected back to whatever energy company is refining it? They certainly don't haul this stuff off in trucks :) You also need to assume that all the existing lines and completed wells are in good order and well maintained before you conclude a single operation is responsible. I know this first hand due to the costs of fixing problems in the lines and keeping production going.
According to all of the definitions of the processes involved, they are indeed safe and well engineered processes worthy of respect. What I allege they are doing instead is performing a rather violent and brutish kind of fracking where it's not a single operation done carefully. After each frac (or series) we were really taking the time to evaluate the formations and recovery process. It took months, and we spent a lot of money hauling off water and contaminated fluids. In the documentation I saw, it was very clear that it was fracks being performed successively, with massive amounts of water being pumped into the formation. From what I also understand, a lot of "horizontal" drilling through formations far shallower than the typical 8k feet in the Marcellus Shale. So most of the fracking examples are not relevant to damage in shallower water tables. The people affected aren't lying, the earthquakes need to be explained, and they're allowed to keep secrets. I allege they are being unsafe and reckless even by traditional fracking standards. Either that, or I am grossly misinterpreting what I read in those documents. It described a process that did not have a well engineered tube proceeding to the surface, but a scorched earth attempt at pulverizing the formations and sucking up the juices. I was unable to visualize their process succeeding without the water tables being completely screwed, and I say that as somebody who has visually inspected well casing, and the explosives used for perforation. No expert, but I think I've got the basic concepts as they were explained to me by the well paid experts in attendance.
If you read some of the links, the doctors are always so incredulous because it really is so ridiculous to contaminate the water supply.
In oil & gas it's not the lack of engineering that kills us. It's the timetables and financial concerns imposed on the engineering and maintenance. Guess where that comes from? I believe my instincts about rampant greed and a complete disregard for their fellow man are correct in this case. BP in the Gulf happened precisely because the engineering was heavily influenced on how much money the executives could siphon out of the company. I think it's happening on land, which is much more difficult to track since you can't see it. In some cases you're deliberately prevented by law. Oil & Gas is that well protected.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday December 07 2014, @06:49AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:36AM
No, sir. I did not. I did not present you an unreasoned fallacy. What I've presented you is:
1) Fracking is a technical process and well engineered.
2) There is considerable dissent about environmental concerns precluded by the engineering associated with fracking.
3) The concerns can be addressed by transparency and scientific explorations, but are precluded by law protecting corporate secrets.
My disclaimer was at the bottom where I said that I couldn't prove it. Therefore, at a minimum the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply. I cannot illustrate or explain the counter example to a good fracking process, as it's wholly precluded by law as well as being nonsensical to every doctor and engineer asked. In fact, I think I strongly implied that it was a fallacy unless I could prove how their fracs are conducted. So in any case, your assertion of the fallacy is pointless. I addressed the issue, AFAICT, in a more or less direct and honest manner.
Additionally, you seem to be asking for proof that fracking is safe, as if it isn't that strongly supported by the science. Do you really need me to break down the whole process? I already did here before, you can search for it. In a way, I am asking for trust that fracs are safe. Why do I have any credibility? Fair question. I was really just enjoying the catering in the moments I wasn't listening to the engineers. However, all the doctors present in those articles are generally of the same mind and you might want to listen to them. What they say is that fracking can't really hurt anything, but that they couldn't make a statement of fact regarding anything else specific to certain formations or specific operations.
If you have any specific questions about the process, just ask.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:50PM
How does your "Is what the oil & gas companies doing considered fracking in the technical sense?" "No. It isn't." differ from "Is it a true Scotsman?" "No. It isn't"?
It's hard to come up with a better match for the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If what people are doing in the real world is "not fracking", then no amount of proselytising about the safety of "true fracking" is relevant to the real world.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday December 08 2014, @02:40AM
It differs because the latter represents a logical fallacy and an intent to use it in a debate willfully, and the former is me stating that the fallacy exists and attempting to address the issue.
The true Scotsman represents behavior in a debate and unwillingness to explore the truth by simply saying that it can't be what they are doing. In one sense it's a pedantic clinging to strictly defined terms, but in another it can be to dodge the debate itself.
I intended nothing of the sort, and did not do such thing in actuality.
Which is why I'm not slamming you, and in fact, I am even responding to you at all. You have a good point when you bring it up, but it does not apply IMHO. I am attempting to explain what a true frac is, what I believe is occurring when specific exploration companies use the term, and then what may be happening in general from my experience.
That is *absolutely* not true.
Back at Slashdot I was having a debate with a user there. My experience with fracking has always led me to support it, but after my conversations with this gentleman, I began to understand that the affected people are not lying. After that, it's just Occam's Razor. Which again, I know that I have to support. I thought I had with my statements about ROI and the actual physics involved. It was a productive conversation that gave me the impetus to really see what may be going on in these fracs instead of just making the assumption that they are correct. Nothing surprised me more than seeing documentation illustrating a continuous water fracking methodology where it was not a simple one-day operation.
The true Scotsman fallacy is purely an emergent property of the designed information asymmetry. I can't actually bring you to a fracking operation and show you anything. All of that is business data, and very well protected. I can explain what it means by definition, and walk you through an abstracted view of the process. I'm unable to do anything more unless we want to spend millions of dollars performing our own frac to demonstrate water table integrity being well maintained. The laws need to be changed to allow more transparency under the ground. I can honest to God perform some of the most gnarly fracking operations possible where we shake an o-ring lose on you out there. Even with that massive amounts of energy and fluid being slammed into the ground, there will be no damage to the water table.
Likewise, as I fully admitted from the start, I cannot prove my statements of the counterexample, the anti-frack. If I could prove them, the EPA would get busy assassinating these corporations in a fervor not seen since Prohibition. The anti-frack I was seeing on paper could not be reasonably stated to not have much in common. Not without almost every safety factor removed and what can only be described as a brutish attempt at forceful recovery that could only destroy formations. Not keep them intact.
Why is it relevant to the real world? So that when people discuss it, the idea is at least in the back of their heads that the information needs to be verified. Stop taking the fracking proponents word for it and demand transparent access to the operations. It's worthy to note that they might be lying to you.
It's frustrating not being able to prove anything, but even more frustrating that people don't simply block operations or protest until a civilian review board of petro engineers from Universities sign off on it with all the data public. Review isn't perfect by any means, but it sure makes it a lot harder to get away with stuff over long periods of time. Not something as big and noticeable as damaged water tables and aquifers that supply people water. This would have been already over if we had actual access to well data and operation logs. With 3D seismic, and operational logs showing casing integrity, I feel pretty confident we could clear it up on a well-by-well basis, all the way up to piping going to the refinery. Why can't we look?
I'm just one person, but I think it's important enough to say this. It's not an unreasoned fallacy to be demanding information symmetry when people are saying that their hair is catching on fire and corporations are saying that cream cheese can't be responsible. That's literally how ridiculous it is that a frack (according the entire purpose and designed engineering) can cause damage to anything beyond the specific designs of the frack. Well since people really are having their hair catch on fire, start freakin ask that they do what you want me to do, and actually start showing people that the cream cheese is really cream cheese instead of saying cream cheese is approved by the FDA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday December 08 2014, @09:34AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:17PM
Freudian slip? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.