Conquer Club

My province has natural gas in the shale below it. There is a huge debate over fracking going on, there have even been riots and multiple arrests of protestors.

I am very interested in hearing of experiences of people living in areas where fracking is occuring. The issues, problems if any, such as with well water, odours, noise, vehicle traffic, waste water disposal, etc.

I would like to hear first hand experiences, not something someone saw on the net, etc.

What about first hand experiences that I saw on the internet?

I heard about a couple who were complaining that since nearby operations started they can now set fire to their tap water.

They do fracking here in Alberta, not where I live but where I spend a lot of time working. So I can't comment on contaminated groundwater and any adverse affects to cities/towns/whatever, but it sure does make a mess of the area they're fracking.

I'm an archaeologist, and from that perspective they (well, oil and gas in general) get away with a lot. Actually, they get away with a lot on all the environmental assessments. For stuff like the oilsands and forestry and pipelines, there are almost always huge environmental impact assessments (including archaeological) done, but fracking tends to slide through. They argue that they have a small impact area (because on the surface, they do) but pumping shit down into the ground like that fucks up a huge area, that has surficial effects over a wide area, as well as your mentioned groundwater effects.

all the nat gas in our area is drillable (pockets) so no fracking.....there appear to be excellent economic benefits but it also appears that actual studies of the afteraffects are.....limited?

In theory, isn't the material insertion well below the water table? Still seems like there would be contamination of some sort....tough one.

Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

Honestly I never would have thought Wyoming had water issues. During my few short trips the climate was high and dry but I figured runoff from the Rockies would supply plenty. Colorado only ever has water issues because Nevada/California would dry up if weren't for the western slopes runoff. That said we have a fair bit if cracking about 25 minutes north of me(near where some of my family lives) and the only complaint I ever heard from them was the influx of people moving to town and ruining the secluded feeling they had.

Endgame422 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

Honestly I never would have thought Wyoming had water issues. During my few short trips the climate was high and dry but I figured runoff from the Rockies would supply plenty. Colorado only ever has water issues because Nevada/California would dry up if weren't for the western slopes runoff. That said we have a fair bit if cracking about 25 minutes north of me(near where some of my family lives) and the only complaint I ever heard from them was the influx of people moving to town and ruining the secluded feeling they had.

Sounds like a low density area.

Endgame422 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

Honestly I never would have thought Wyoming had water issues. During my few short trips the climate was high and dry but I figured runoff from the Rockies would supply plenty. Colorado only ever has water issues because Nevada/California would dry up if weren't for the western slopes runoff. That said we have a fair bit if cracking about 25 minutes north of me(near where some of my family lives) and the only complaint I ever heard from them was the influx of people moving to town and ruining the secluded feeling they had.

Yeah, water is actually relegated pretty tightly here. We'll have 1-2 years of good rain, and 7-8 years of drought/low precipitation. And a lot of the snow on the Rockies doesn't melt. Some, but not all.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

Is fracking occuring in your state?

Is Natural Gas Fracking similar to getting an enema?

notyou2 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Many issues with it. And in a very dry climate like Wyoming where most water is already sourced for one thing or another (including natural flow), fracking here would put a lot of stress on the water resources here during the good years. During droughts, it could get ugly.

Is fracking occuring in your state?

If you mean Wyoming, yeah.. its been going on for years.

HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however". you first have to distinguish between basic hydraulic fracking and deep water hydraulic fracking. The companies very much try to blurr the distinction. A LOT of the claims they make about it "being safely used for decades", etc refer to shallow wells, even partially laterally dug wells. (that is, they go sideways not just down ).

The first, where wells are relatively shallow, etc. has been going on for decades and has had relatively few problems. There is certainly disturbance of the ground around the drill sites, a big increase in truck traffic, which can be a pretty big deal in rural areas, and yes, a lot of water is used that cannot, as of now, be reclaimed (and not likely for quite some time.. many decades hence, if at all). A lot of the Wyoming activity is this type of well activity.

Where I live, in Western PA, as well as over in Ohio (where they are getting fracking related earthquakes) and various other areas, they are practicing DEEP water hydraulic fracking. Those wells go hundreds of feet down and laterally ,, across. This type of technology is relatively new, though exactly how new is somewhat debatable. Companies claim that it began in the 1990's. Other sources say that what we are experiencing now, the combination of very deep wells, dug laterally, is less than a decade old.

At any rate, it is the latter type of well that is most controversial on many fronts. In Ohio, they are documenting low-level Earth quakes. The quakes I have heard about are in the 4.0-5.0 Richter scale range (for those of you not from CA , this is something like a very large truck going by an old rickety house. Its not going to level many buildings, though houses not built for quakes can experience damage. And, well, the real point is both that even a small series of quakes where there were basically none is a worry...and, no one really knows what the long term prospects or impact might be.

Another concern is water contamination. There is a highly sensational move "Gasland" (and, apparently a follow up Gasland II) that shows dramatic shots of people lighting their faucets on fire...basically their water faucets are acting like a methane burner outlet. The thing is, while methane and those shots look very dramatic, and while apparently some methane poisoning has happened, the real concern from methane is not toxicity, it is explosion.. and fixing it basically just means venting well. Just as an example, all the houses near a local dump have had big vent pipes put into their yards, precisely because methane tends to build up there. Those vents are really enough to just send the methane up into the air, dilute enough that it won't burn. The REAL problem is not methane, the real problem is all the hundreds (apparently, its at least that many chemicals) of chemicals that are used. Apparently some are quite toxic, but no one outside of the company hierarchy are allowed to know. Just as an example, my husband is the local fire chief. He has been to more than one wreck where a driver has flat out refused to give any information on the chemical in his tanker... to a fire chief, in uniform, attending a wreck with occupied houses immediately in the vicinity.

Initially, they did not even notify local officials where their sites were. New roads would pop up and emergency responders would not even know about them.... and I mean guys who hunt and fish regularly, so I am not talking people who sit in their houses and Google what they want to know. Luckily, VERY luckily, there has not yet been a major incident. However, at a recent training the chiefs (all the area chiefs) attended, they were flat out told that they would not be called for a couple of hours, would not be given much information... etc.

On top of this is the fact that because these wells are lateral and because most mineral rights are not owned by property owners in this area, no one really even knows how far these wells are going. We have one well pad set a few hundred feet from our water supply reservoir. There is little doubt that this well goes under the reservoir, but not only did local folks and government entities have absolutely no way in this, we were not even told, still have not officially been told anything.. at all.

anyway, that ought to be enough background for anyone. If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer, but I am not an expert.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you mean Wyoming, yeah.. its been going on for years.

HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however". you first have to distinguish between basic hydraulic fracking and deep water hydraulic fracking. The companies very much try to blurr the distinction. A LOT of the claims they make about it "being safely used for decades", etc refer to shallow wells, even partially laterally dug wells. (that is, they go sideways not just down ).

The first, where wells are relatively shallow, etc. has been going on for decades and has had relatively few problems. There is certainly disturbance of the ground around the drill sites, a big increase in truck traffic, which can be a pretty big deal in rural areas, and yes, a lot of water is used that cannot, as of now, be reclaimed (and not likely for quite some time.. many decades hence, if at all). A lot of the Wyoming activity is this type of well activity.

Where I live, in Western PA, as well as over in Ohio (where they are getting fracking related earthquakes) and various other areas, they are practicing DEEP water hydraulic fracking. Those wells go hundreds of feet down and laterally ,, across. This type of technology is relatively new, though exactly how new is somewhat debatable. Companies claim that it began in the 1990's. Other sources say that what we are experiencing now, the combination of very deep wells, dug laterally, is less than a decade old.

At any rate, it is the latter type of well that is most controversial on many fronts. In Ohio, they are documenting low-level Earth quakes. The quakes I have heard about are in the 4.0-5.0 Richter scale range (for those of you not from CA , this is something like a very large truck going by an old rickety house. Its not going to level many buildings, though houses not built for quakes can experience damage. And, well, the real point is both that even a small series of quakes where there were basically none is a worry...and, no one really knows what the long term prospects or impact might be.

Another concern is water contamination. There is a highly sensational move "Gasland" (and, apparently a follow up Gasland II) that shows dramatic shots of people lighting their faucets on fire...basically their water faucets are acting like a methane burner outlet. The thing is, while methane and those shots look very dramatic, and while apparently some methane poisoning has happened, the real concern from methane is not toxicity, it is explosion.. and fixing it basically just means venting well. Just as an example, all the houses near a local dump have had big vent pipes put into their yards, precisely because methane tends to build up there. Those vents are really enough to just send the methane up into the air, dilute enough that it won't burn. The REAL problem is not methane, the real problem is all the hundreds (apparently, its at least that many chemicals) of chemicals that are used. Apparently some are quite toxic, but no one outside of the company hierarchy are allowed to know.

What's been the EPA's role in this? How about court cases?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Initially, they did not even notify local officials where their sites were. New roads would pop up and emergency responders would not even know about them.... and I mean guys who hunt and fish regularly, so I am not talking people who sit in their houses and Google what they want to know. Luckily, VERY luckily, there has not yet been a major incident. However, at a recent training the chiefs (all the area chiefs) attended, they were flat out told that they would not be called for a couple of hours, would not be given much information... etc.

On top of this is the fact that because these wells are lateral and because most mineral rights are not owned by property owners in this area, no one really even knows how far these wells are going. We have one well pad set a few hundred feet from our water supply reservoir. There is little doubt that this well goes under the reservoir, but not only did local folks and government entities have absolutely no way in this, we were not even told, still have not officially been told anything.. at all.

anyway, that ought to be enough background for anyone. If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer, but I am not an expert.

How can that persist? If the local government owns the water supply reservoir, and they're concerned about possible contamination, then what prevents them from conducting tests and going to court about the issue?

They are planning deep lateral drills in my area. Directional drilling has only been around afew decades as Player indicated. They won't divulge the chemicals that they are putting down the bores.

As near as I can tell the province owns the mineral rights, which trumps municiple regulations on water reservoirs and aquifiers. Many people in my province get their drinking water from wells.

The worst part is, natural gas is at a low in price, and the US Dept of Energy says the price will stay depressed for 20 to 25 years due to all the gas in shale deposits being exploited around North America. My province is broke and in major debt and they see this as our saviour. I see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I hear the compressor plants emit noise and light pollution and fumes. The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

I wonder if the province shouldn't wait until the price of natural gas is better and the technology is hopefully safer.

notyou2 wrote:They are planning deep lateral drills in my area. Directional drilling has only been around afew decades as Player indicated. They won't divulge the chemicals that they are putting down the bores.

As near as I can tell the province owns the mineral rights, which trumps municiple regulations on water reservoirs and aquifiers. Many people in my province get their drinking water from wells.

The worst part is, natural gas is at a low in price, and the US Dept of Energy says the price will stay depressed for 20 to 25 years due to all the gas in shale deposits being exploited around North America. My province is broke and in major debt and they see this as our saviour. I see it as an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I hear the compressor plants emit noise and light pollution and fumes. The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

I wonder if the province shouldn't wait until the price of natural gas is better and the technology is hopefully safer.

I'm sure your municipal government and the national government are doing everything they can to compensate you for the present and future costs. By the way, do you vote?

Yes I vote. I strongly believe in voting. I may miss a municipal election on occasion, but I have not missed a provincual election or federal election since I was of age to vote.

notyou2 wrote:The secondary roads take a tremendous beating due to the heavy equipment and the trucks full of water and chemicals needed.

This is a very overlooked problem with all oil and gas industry. The traffic they put on the public roads trashes them, then the public blames the government for failing to maintain their roads.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you mean Wyoming, yeah.. its been going on for years.

HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however". you first have to distinguish between basic hydraulic fracking and deep water hydraulic fracking. The companies very much try to blurr the distinction. A LOT of the claims they make about it "being safely used for decades", etc refer to shallow wells, even partially laterally dug wells. (that is, they go sideways not just down ).

The first, where wells are relatively shallow, etc. has been going on for decades and has had relatively few problems. There is certainly disturbance of the ground around the drill sites, a big increase in truck traffic, which can be a pretty big deal in rural areas, and yes, a lot of water is used that cannot, as of now, be reclaimed (and not likely for quite some time.. many decades hence, if at all). A lot of the Wyoming activity is this type of well activity.

Where I live, in Western PA, as well as over in Ohio (where they are getting fracking related earthquakes) and various other areas, they are practicing DEEP water hydraulic fracking. Those wells go hundreds of feet down and laterally ,, across. This type of technology is relatively new, though exactly how new is somewhat debatable. Companies claim that it began in the 1990's. Other sources say that what we are experiencing now, the combination of very deep wells, dug laterally, is less than a decade old.

At any rate, it is the latter type of well that is most controversial on many fronts. In Ohio, they are documenting low-level Earth quakes. The quakes I have heard about are in the 4.0-5.0 Richter scale range (for those of you not from CA , this is something like a very large truck going by an old rickety house. Its not going to level many buildings, though houses not built for quakes can experience damage. And, well, the real point is both that even a small series of quakes where there were basically none is a worry...and, no one really knows what the long term prospects or impact might be.

Another concern is water contamination. There is a highly sensational move "Gasland" (and, apparently a follow up Gasland II) that shows dramatic shots of people lighting their faucets on fire...basically their water faucets are acting like a methane burner outlet. The thing is, while methane and those shots look very dramatic, and while apparently some methane poisoning has happened, the real concern from methane is not toxicity, it is explosion.. and fixing it basically just means venting well. Just as an example, all the houses near a local dump have had big vent pipes put into their yards, precisely because methane tends to build up there. Those vents are really enough to just send the methane up into the air, dilute enough that it won't burn. The REAL problem is not methane, the real problem is all the hundreds (apparently, its at least that many chemicals) of chemicals that are used. Apparently some are quite toxic, but no one outside of the company hierarchy are allowed to know.

What's been the EPA's role in this? How about court cases?

The EPA's control is limited, for a variety of reasons. Why is part of the mess that folks are trying to sort out. Court cases move slowly, at best. Also, there is often little standing. Basically, once someone owns the mineral rights, you have no say at all on what happens underground. Some say that surface rights technically extend down only 1-3',( which is actually less than many people's basements). Also, you have to prove harm. That means, generally knowing what chemicals you are facing/documenting the specific harm AND being able to tie it to fracking... and having the money to fight billion dollar companies with politicians in their back pockets.

A lot of this goes back to legislation from the 1800's. It was passed at a time when getting minerals out was considered part of developing and industrializing the nation. It is among the most firm legislation around. Although getting into the specific details would require some research.

BigBallinStalin wrote:[

PLAYER57832 wrote:Initially, they did not even notify local officials where their sites were. New roads would pop up and emergency responders would not even know about them.... and I mean guys who hunt and fish regularly, so I am not talking people who sit in their houses and Google what they want to know. Luckily, VERY luckily, there has not yet been a major incident. However, at a recent training the chiefs (all the area chiefs) attended, they were flat out told that they would not be called for a couple of hours, would not be given much information... etc.

On top of this is the fact that because these wells are lateral and because most mineral rights are not owned by property owners in this area, no one really even knows how far these wells are going. We have one well pad set a few hundred feet from our water supply reservoir. There is little doubt that this well goes under the reservoir, but not only did local folks and government entities have absolutely no way in this, we were not even told, still have not officially been told anything.. at all.

anyway, that ought to be enough background for anyone. If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer, but I am not an expert.

How can that persist? If the local government owns the water supply reservoir, and they're concerned about possible contamination, then what prevents them from conducting tests and going to court about the issue?

Short answer.. the companies have money and localities do not.
The current law basically gives no pre-emptive protection. You can sue AFTER harm is caused, but rarely in advance. Many localities are trying, but most local municipalities don' t have much funding available to fight. In PA, the Corbett administration is heavily pro gas company. Just as an example, recent legislation was to deny localities certain state funds if they fought the oil companies at all on any grounds.

In short... money. The gas companies have it and the places with Marcellus shale mostly do not, aside from some people getting royalties. BUT, on top of the other issues, many who signed contracts are finding themselves not getting anything like money they thought they would get. The companies, in some cases, extract all sorts of fees so that the lessees only get pennies (sometimes literally). That, too, is going through court and legislative battles.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... REPORT: Fracking Doesn't Create Destructive Earthquakes

Man-made earthquakes, a side effect of some high-tech energy drilling, cause less shaking and in general are about 16 times weaker than natural earthquakes with the same magnitude, a new federal study found.

People feeling the ground move from induced quakes — those that are not natural, but triggered by injections of wastewater deep underground— report significantly less shaking than those who experience more normal earthquakes of the same magnitude, according to a study by U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Susan Hough.

Due to this breaking information, we will not play "I feel the earth move under my feet" at this time.

tzor wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... REPORT: Fracking Doesn't Create Destructive Earthquakes

Man-made earthquakes, a side effect of some high-tech energy drilling, cause less shaking and in general are about 16 times weaker than natural earthquakes with the same magnitude, a new federal study found.

People feeling the ground move from induced quakes — those that are not natural, but triggered by injections of wastewater deep underground— report significantly less shaking than those who experience more normal earthquakes of the same magnitude, according to a study by U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Susan Hough.

Due to this breaking information, we will not play "I feel the earth move under my feet" at this time.

#1 Source of your information?

#2 the issue is not the magnitude, its that man made activity like this can cause Earthquakes at all. Also, these quakes and all other impacts are very recent. History tells us that worst impacts in the environment are often long term.


Also, as I said before, the worst worry are the chemicals -- chemicals that are not even identified, making any definitive testing even more difficult.

when i turned on my stove i got some gas to light the fire!!! it was cool!!

This is what a nationalbodyof scientists is recommending to the federal government and my provincial government is ignoring it.

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx

PLAYER57832 wrote:#1 Source of your information?

I provided a link ... you didn't check? [U.S. Geological Survey]

PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 the issue is not the magnitude, its that man made activity like this can cause Earthquakes at all. Also, these quakes and all other impacts are very recent. History tells us that worst impacts in the environment are often long term.

Then let's all live in caves then because who knows what disasters are lurking from modern technology.

The artificial quakes may have less energy — only after 6 miles away — because the fault is lubricated by the injected wastewater, making it easier to slip and do so more smoothly in less of a herky-jerky motion, Hough theorized. Also these faults can be slipping with less pent-up energy than they would have if they slipped naturally years later.

And you were mentioning the "long term?"

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, as I said before, the worst worry are the chemicals -- chemicals that are not even identified, making any definitive testing even more difficult.

Proverbial straw man. Debunked in 2012 (from same article).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today [July 25, 2012] that it has completed its sampling of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pa. Data previously supplied to the agency by residents, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Cabot Oil and Gas Exploration had indicated the potential for elevated levels of water contaminants in wells, and following requests by residents EPA took steps to sample water in the area to ensure there were not elevated levels of contaminants. Based on the outcome of that sampling, EPA has determined that there are not levels of contaminants present that would require additional action by the Agency.

As someone who lives in a community located near farmland, I can tell you that there is a far greater danger of groundwater contamination from agriculture than there is from fracking, in fact it is already a major critical problem in many areas. After that, there is a far greater problem cause by ethanol enabled petroleum contamination by gas stations. (Ethanol allows the petroleum to propagate through the soil faster.)

notyou2 wrote:This is what a nationalbodyof scientists is recommending to the federal government and my provincial government is ignoring it.

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx

Council wrote:Although the technologies and techniques used in extracting shale gas are understood, more research and information is needed on the potential environmental impacts that could result from this process. In Canada, shale gas development has moved forward in British Columbia and Alberta while potential development is still being explored in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Unlike the United States, Canadian development has moved at a slower pace. This slower pace of development presents a unique opportunity for Canada to take the time to explore and determine the proper management practices to develop its shale gas resources responsibly.

Translation:

We don't want to piss off the oil companies with whom most of us want to secure employment, so we'd better not say it's bad. On the other hand, we don't want to get blamed if there's a disaster of some kind, so we'd better not say it's good. The safest course of action seems to be to restate the obvious, like noting trends about where it's going on, without actually coming out with any meaningful analysis.

Oh yes, and don't forget to throw in the standard caveat that "more research and information is needed." That particular beauty can never be disproven (who is going to come out in favour of less information?) and it provides us a good opportunity for more cool trips to interesting places at the taxpayers' expense.

Council wrote:For Canada, regional context matters. Environments, ecosystems, geographies, and geologies are not uniform across the country. Therefore, consideration of different potential regional impacts need to be closely considered when determining the suitability for shale gas development.

Translation:

Let's check the opinion polls before deciding which regions are suitable for such development, and which are not.

I don't have time for a full response, but this much is enough to show you are off base. How much will take more internet digging.. which I will do later.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:#1 Source of your information?

I provided a link ... you didn't check? [U.S. Geological Survey]

[/quote]
Initially, no. However that link is definitely NOT a direct USGS link, and its not current. In the world of fracking information, 2 years is a LONG time.

Here is a link to an article from the USGS http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs ... rthquakes/
That article clearly states that some

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 the issue is not the magnitude, its that man made activity like this can cause Earthquakes at all. Also, these quakes and all other impacts are very recent. History tells us that worst impacts in the environment are often long term.

Then let's all live in caves then because who knows what disasters are lurking from modern

Yeah, anyone who questions big business and modern technology is just obviously a luddite

tzor wrote:

The artificial quakes may have less energy — only after 6 miles away — because the fault is lubricated by the injected wastewater, making it easier to slip and do so more smoothly in less of a herky-jerky motion, Hough theorized. Also these faults can be slipping with less pent-up energy than they would have if they slipped naturally years later.

And you were mentioning the "long term?"

[/quote]
And -- relevance? One scientist's speculation doesn't mean there is no concern. This is just one of many theories. The real point is that we don't understand enough to know what long term impacts will be, and are allowing these companies to go forward in irreversible ways without much restriction OR investigation.