• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Gasland’ Director Confronted on NPR Show

You are personally involved in discussing the dishonesty of Fox in a thread where that dishonesty was used to then dishonestly lead into saying that there were zero problems with fracking. You don't get to take 'your' conversation out of the context of the thread in which it is occurring. He is not going to admit to you of Fox's dishonesty without also using deflection himself because he is having to account for not just your dialogue, but also the context in which it is occurring. And rightly so. There is no reason to give ground based on such dishonesty.

No one is saying that there are ZERO risks involved. We're just pointing out that the problems that are being presented are impossible. Come up with something realistic. You have a poster insisting that fracing is being done IN aquafers and that just isn't happening. I'm not going to call anyone a liar, just very, very, very uninformed.
 
No one is saying that there are ZERO risks involved. We're just pointing out that the problems that are being presented are impossible. Come up with something realistic. You have a poster insisting that fracing is being done IN aquafers and that just isn't happening. I'm not going to call anyone a liar, just very, very, very uninformed.

Real unbiased studies indicate you are wrong.

Study confirms contamination around some "fracking" sites

NEXT DISCREDITED RIGHTWING MEME!
 
All those who wish fracking to continue should be requirred to live on the water coming from the people's wells near where fracking operations take place. Do that and maybe I'll believe you. Of course I'll wait a few years to see if you make it that long. We can put, "We told you so" on your grave marker.
 
There is no drinking water at 14,000 feet.

Even if there was, drilling for it would be far too expensive.

Keep ignoring reality all you want, but it's not going to change the facts.

And just how do you suppose the well gets down to 14,000 feet? That is the ONE END of the well. You ignore the part of the well that starts at the surface and ends at the bottom. You do know sometimes they cheap out and don't even provide a well casement, right (about 1 in 5 of frack wells)? Not to mention where they do place a casement, they crack and often fail.
 
And just how do you suppose the well gets down to 14,000 feet? That is the ONE END of the well. You ignore the part of the well that starts at the surface and ends at the bottom. You do know sometimes they cheap out and don't even provide a well casement, right (about 1 in 5 of frack wells)? Not to mention where they do place a casement, they crack and often fail.

You can't go that deep without running casing. The hole will collapse before you TD, much less before you get your production string on bottom.

The casing is screwed together as it's run down hole, so the chances of a leak at the tool joint are a thousand to one.

Faulty cementing would be the most likely avenue for materials escspe, but again, we're talking about displacing 14,000 of solidified cement.

Look at the areas in Texas where drilling has been going on for 100 years, long before ANY government oversight, especially in east Texas. No dead zones there.
 
I think you're "seeing" way too much and not enough at the same time. But, I'll leave you to that.

I think you are excusing yourself by not seeing, with the added bonus from your perspective that you get to believe that someone in opposition to you is 'afraid' to admit something. And I will leave you to THAT.
 
No one is saying that there are ZERO risks involved. We're just pointing out that the problems that are being presented are impossible. Come up with something realistic. You have a poster insisting that fracing is being done IN aquafers and that just isn't happening. I'm not going to call anyone a liar, just very, very, very uninformed.

I am actually enjoying the fact that you have looked into this matter to a great degree, and think you are playing honestly for the most part. But, I wouldn't hitch your train to people who think finding the truth is some sort of game where they try to get away with what they can. You stand much better on that front on your own.
 
So, you think oil companies intetionally drill in close proximity to water wells?

If I'm reading you right, then you couldn't be more wrong, for a couple reasons: 1) there minimum distances set in place, by law. 2) a 300 TD water well, with a 6" hole diameter isn't going to effect a 10,000+ foot gas well.

Aquafers exist in pourous strata--clay and sand. Oil and gas wells that are fraced are drilled into impermeable shale formations, hence the need for fracturing the formation to allow the product to escape the strata into the production string.

Head of Jauquin said earlier that fracing was taking place IN potable aquafers. That's incredibly wrong for many reasons, but primarily, aquafers are in pourous clay. There's absolutely no reason to frac a clay formation, that already allow free fluid flow. Not to mention, an aquafer that is 10-14,000 willpoison whomever is drinking the water. Therr are no 10,000 foot waterwells, for drinking water. The deepest water wells in west Texas are 3,000 feet and the water is so useless, that there strict government controls on how the water is used. The water from those wells is strictly used for frac water. When the well is no longer needed, it has to be plugged and abandoned per government regulations to insure that civilians don't ise the water.

This is drilling, not engineering.

Wrong.

There are 15 directional wells drilled at each location here.

They sprawl our horizontally, not straight down.

The danger to water wells is very high.
 
Wrong.

There are 15 directional wells drilled at each location here.

They sprawl our horizontally, not straight down.

The danger to water wells is very high.

Right. That's called "side tracking" they use a tool valled a "mud motor". The bit turns and the drill string doesn't.

However, you still haven't explained how the frac chems move vertically over 10,000 feet.

The biggest failure so far is in explaining how the effected water wells are only contaminated with methane and not frac chemicals, or sand. The frac sand alone would kill the water well, by choking off the aquafer, or plugging up the production string in the water well. Got an explanation for why methane is the ONLY contaminent found in those wells?
 
I am actually enjoying the fact that you have looked into this matter to a great degree, and think you are playing honestly for the most part. But, I wouldn't hitch your train to people who think finding the truth is some sort of game where they try to get away with what they can. You stand much better on that front on your own.

I hold drilling licenses in two states. I'm telling you how drilling works.

I could get why water wells aren't drilled past 1,000 feet, but i would have to get into gradient pressure, torque and vertical weight ratios. Not to mention, water that lies past 1,000 is rarely drinkable and ftesh water doesn't exist in solid shale.

When you find the truth, be sure and let me know. So far, all I've seen are wild ass guesses by people who don't know a monkey board from a rat's ass
 
You can't go that deep without running casing. The hole will collapse before you TD, much less before you get your production string on bottom.

The casing is screwed together as it's run down hole, so the chances of a leak at the tool joint are a thousand to one.

Faulty cementing would be the most likely avenue for materials escspe, but again, we're talking about displacing 14,000 of solidified cement.

Look at the areas in Texas where drilling has been going on for 100 years, long before ANY government oversight, especially in east Texas. No dead zones there.

According to Gasland 2 and the natural gas industry spokemonkeys "only" 1 out of 5 wells with casements develop leaks in the first 5 years. AND that is false that all gas wells have cement casements. Here's a good article from Nat Geo accurately spelling out both sides of the story. Another good one is here that says a lot of the same:

A fourth possibility, which Jackson thinks is most probable, is that the cement between the well casing and the surrounding rock is not forming a proper seal. Cracking or too little cement could create a passageway allowing methane from an intermediate layer of rock to drift into water sources near the surface. Such cases have been documented. In 2007, for example, the faulty cement seal of a fracked well in Bainbridge, Ohio, allowed gas from a shale layer above the target layer to travel into an underground drinking water source. The methane built up enough to cause an explosion in a homeowner's basement.

And then there's this:

Moreover industry studies clearly show that five to seven per cent of all new oil and gas wells leak. As wells age, the percentage of leakers can increase to a startling 30 or 50 per cent. But the worst leakers remain "deviated" or horizontal wells commonly used for hydraulic fracturing.

In fact leaking wellbores has been a persistent and chronic problem for decades. Even a 2003 article in Oil Field Review, a publication of Schlumberger, reported that, "Since the earliest gas wells, uncontrolled migration of hydrocarbons to the surface has challenged the oil and gas industry."
 
Last edited:
I hold drilling licenses in two states. I'm telling you how drilling works.

I could get why water wells aren't drilled past 1,000 feet, but i would have to get into gradient pressure, torque and vertical weight ratios. Not to mention, water that lies past 1,000 is rarely drinkable and ftesh water doesn't exist in solid shale.

When you find the truth, be sure and let me know. So far, all I've seen are wild ass guesses by people who don't know a monkey board from a rat's ass

I was speaking about your light defense of a certain someone on this thread, when I referred to people who think the truth is some kind of game. As for the whole issue of fracking, I am still very much sorting out what to believe, and I appreciate the perspective you are bringing to the table. Thanks for that.
 
According to Gasland 2 and the natural gas industry spokemonkeys "only" 1 out of 5 wells with casements develop leaks in the first 5 years. AND that is false that all gas wells have cement casements. Here's a good article from Nat Geo accurately spelling out both sides of the story. Another good one is here that says a lot of the same:



And then there's this:

But, they're still just guessing, because I doubt that they have jacked the casing on a single well to test for leaks in the casing string, or voids in the cement.

That being the casr, it's just as plausible that those water wells were contaminated before the gas well was even drilled. Moreso, since the only contaminents detected were methane has; no drilling fluids, no sand and no frac chemicals. Anyone care to explain that?
 
'Gasland' Director Confronted on NPR Show | Washington Free Beacon



You can listen to the exchange here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9gMOJpyYzo

Gasland = Propaganda and lies

Fracking = Safe

Although I agree this film is not known to be factual, we need more information on the affects of fracking. The study will be completed by the end of the year. There also needs to be a strict set of guidelines. This is one area where there needs to be regulations and accountability.
 
Although I agree this film is not known to be factual, we need more information on the affects of fracking. The study will be completed by the end of the year. There also needs to be a strict set of guidelines. This is one area where there needs to be regulations and accountability.

There already are regulations.

BTW, who's doing the study?
 
There is no drinking water at 14,000 feet.

Even if there was, drilling for it would be far too expensive.

Keep ignoring reality all you want, but it's not going to change the facts.

I'm so glad some guy on the internet can debunk an unbiased scientific study in three silly sentences.

It's perfect tea baggery.
 
You can't go that deep without running casing. The hole will collapse before you TD, much less before you get your production string on bottom.

The casing is screwed together as it's run down hole, so the chances of a leak at the tool joint are a thousand to one.

Faulty cementing would be the most likely avenue for materials escspe, but again, we're talking about displacing 14,000 of solidified cement.

Look at the areas in Texas where drilling has been going on for 100 years, long before ANY government oversight, especially in east Texas. No dead zones there.

The study dealt with this. Apparently you didn't read it. Ideologues and tea partiers are afraid of actual facts.
 
You can't go that deep without running casing. The hole will collapse before you TD, much less before you get your production string on bottom.

The casing is screwed together as it's run down hole, so the chances of a leak at the tool joint are a thousand to one.

Faulty cementing would be the most likely avenue for materials escspe, but again, we're talking about displacing 14,000 of solidified cement.

Look at the areas in Texas where drilling has been going on for 100 years, long before ANY government oversight, especially in east Texas. No dead zones there.

Tony-Ingraffea.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom