Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste
containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it 10-fold
and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here
to get an idea.
I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked up
the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so for
ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I
exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of
waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was
easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach 1
million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of
overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is
really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.
Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of
fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly
clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done safely
You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on fracking
but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of people in eastern
Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural gas while their
neighbors, just across the state line in western New York are really pissed
because New York doesn't allow the process.
I do believe that New York has put a plan/law in effect or being
considered. Google 'New York fracking policy.'
In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped the
semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the water used
is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.
NO, Bub, you cannot say there is NO waste connected with fracking.
Speaking from experience . . . though recycling used frack water is a
growing business, there is still PLENTY of waste water aka, 'blowback' and
there are serious efforts [in Karnes County, Texas and, I assume other Eagle
Ford Shale play counties] to establish multiple waste disposal injection
wells, almost assuredly in close proximity to homes and crops.
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120411005372/en , as just one example.
There is plenty of opposition from long-time local framers/ranchers
including those that are pocketing some serious bank from their royalties.
I know because I know a few of those farmers/ranchers, and land owners. I
believe, in the end, the Texas Railroad Commission which "regulates" the oil
and gas industry will cow-tow to the industry. The API almost always gets
its way; TRRC commissioners need campaign money, too. Those
farmers/ranchers, and land owners I refer to, are also afraid that is
exactly what will happen. These are died-in-the-wool, anti-Obama
conservatives. They've ranched the land their whole lives; lived through
the uranium strip-mining of the early '70s. I've seen some evidence that
the TRRC is doing it's best to curtail and otherwise short-circuit land
owner's objections by restricting public input [filing dates and similar
such tactics]. A legal fight is brewing, to be sure.
But, you CANNOT say there is NO waste from fracking.
Dave in [Eagle Ford] Texas
Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
waste dumping from a fracking operation."
I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
Dave in Texas
"Richard" wrote in message
On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
Let me see if I understand this?
They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?
Total drilled depth is usually 15,000-16,00 feet including a 4,000-5,000
lateral. There may be as many as 20 stages of fracking involving more than
a million gallons of water, various types of sand and 'secret' chemicals.
This animated video gives you the general idea:
Dave in Texas
Yep. They even tried it with atom bombs on three separate occasions.
Any gas leakage into groundwater or the like would have been easily
detectable (like you point a geiger counter at if and if it goes tick
tick you've got a leak). The AEC looked for such leakage and didn't
Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.
Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft underground, can
be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something happening five to
15,000 below it.
Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some are:
The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.
I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?
Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.
Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.
And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.
Adapt, overcome, continue.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.