• 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

“But the NWPOA say he was never a member of their group and was not even on their email list,” McAleer wrote in an email. “His changed story was a lie. He has now told two lies about the origins of Gasland.”


________________________________________________

"Yes. We became members August 30th 2008 and dropped out formally in 2009. Here is the email addressed to my father's email address from NWPOA which proves our membership.” Attached you will find the email with Michael’s domain redacted.

Email_Membership_Josh_Fox_Screenshot.jpg

More "Gas" on the Fire | Aspen Public Radio
 
Drinking water doesnt exist at 10,000 feet and that's a fact.

And there's no way that high pressure gas can push the chemicals up the outside of the pipe?
 
And there's no way that high pressure gas can push the chemicals up the outside of the pipe?

Sure it can. But, 1) we're not talking about high pressure gas, hence the need to frac the strata and 2) how do you explain the absence of those chemicals in the contaminated wells?
 
That information isn't correct. Fracking at 10,000%+ feet uisn't going to effect a water zone at 300 feet.

Be careful what you read. Just because it!s on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

Said a guy I know from the Internet.
 
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?

No, what you say is true, methane does contaminate some of those wells naturally, and the act of fracking does open up some new channels for that contamination. However, it is not true that only methane is found after fracking has commenced. Other contaminents are present (common components of the fracking fluids). All this is made more difficult by the fact that companies hold the formulation of their fracking fluids as trade secrets and refuse to reveal. Took congress many tries to get a list of just one company's formulation.
 
How many oil wells has this dude drilled? I bet he doesn't know a v-door from a rat's ass.

For many years he was the goto guy for the gas drilling industry.

Dr. Ingraffea's research concentrates on computer simulation and physical testing of complex fracturing processes. He and his students performed pioneering research in the use of interactive computer graphics in computational mechanics. He has authored with his students over 200 papers in these areas. He has been a principal investigator on over $35M in R&D projects from the NSF, NASA Langley, Nichols Research, NASA Glenn, AFOSR, FAA, Kodak, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, IBM, Schlumberger, Digital Equipment Corporation, the Gas Research Institute, Sandia National Laboratories, the Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, General Dynamics, Boeing, Caterpillar Tractor, and Northrop Grumman Aerospace.

Source
 
Said somebody that can't post a single link that proves me wrong.

I don't have to prove you wrong. I'm not even trying to prove you wrong.

Your opinion is one of many I've read on the topic.

Since you a.) are a simple drill monkey with no graduate level degree in geology or hydrology or anything else that would cause me to consider you an authority or subject matter expert, and b.) have a vested financial interest in seeing that this means of gas extraction continues, I don't even weigh your opinion all that very heavily.

And don't get me wrong. It is not my intention to dispariage in any way your ability to dig a hole in the ground. In fact, if I ever need a hole dug 14,000 feet into the ground you'd be the first guy I'd see.

But being good at digging a hole in the ground doesn't make you an expert or an authority on what happens within and outside of that hole once it's dug.

And understand, I'm not even necessarially saying that you're wrong.

I believe you are, given everything that I've read about how patently awful for the environment fracking is and all of the lawsuits (won, settled, and pending) against energy companies that practice fracking (especially as they relate to groundwater contamination), but I don't consider this topic closed and I maintain an open mind and accept that something may come along to sway my opinion in the opposite direction.

But whatever that "something" is, it isn't going to be the anonymous opinion given on the Internet by a guy who is the fracking equivelent of a roughneck.

So post up some scientific studies (not energy company or Tea Party think tank studies) that PROVE fracking is safe and I'll certainly consider them.

But for you to sit there and insist that this **** is safe and I need to take your word for it?

It's like a door greeter at Wal-Mart insisting that superstores and the importation of cheap junk from China have no effect on the decline of America's economy.
 
No, what you say is true, methane does contaminate some of those wells naturally, and the act of fracking does open up some new channels for that contamination. However, it is not true that only methane is found after fracking has commenced. Other contaminents are present (common components of the fracking fluids). All this is made more difficult by the fact that companies hold the formulation of their fracking fluids as trade secrets and refuse to reveal. Took congress many tries to get a list of just one company's formulation.

Its not a secret.

What Chemicals Are Used | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry
 


This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.[19] It created a loophole that exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations that would normally be required under federal clean water laws — see exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law. The loophole is commonly known as the "Halliburton loophole" since former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was reportedly instrumental in its passage.[20] The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 111th United States Congress adjourned on January 3, 2011, without taking any significant action on the FRAC Act. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[6] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[7]
As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[8][9]

Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I don't have to prove you wrong. I'm not even trying to prove you wrong.

Your opinion is one of many I've read on the topic.

Since you a.) are a simple drill monkey with no graduate level degree in geology or hydrology or anything else that would cause me to consider you an authority or subject matter expert, and b.) have a vested financial interest in seeing that this means of gas extraction continues, I don't even weigh your opinion all that very heavily.

And don't get me wrong. It is not my intention to dispariage in any way your ability to dig a hole in the ground. In fact, if I ever need a hole dug 14,000 feet into the ground you'd be the first guy I'd see.

But being good at digging a hole in the ground doesn't make you an expert or an authority on what happens within and outside of that hole once it's dug.

And understand, I'm not even necessarially saying that you're wrong.

I believe you are, given everything that I've read about how patently awful for the environment fracking is and all of the lawsuits (won, settled, and pending) against energy companies that practice fracking (especially as they relate to groundwater contamination), but I don't consider this topic closed and I maintain an open mind and accept that something may come along to sway my opinion in the opposite direction.

But whatever that "something" is, it isn't going to be the anonymous opinion given on the Internet by a guy who is the fracking equivelent of a roughneck.

So post up some scientific studies (not energy company or Tea Party think tank studies) that PROVE fracking is safe and I'll certainly consider them.

But for you to sit there and insist that this **** is safe and I need to take your word for it?

It's like a door greeter at Wal-Mart insisting that superstores and the importation of cheap junk from China have no effect on the decline of America's economy.

This drill monkey has a PhD in drilling. That's why I hold drilling licenses in two states.
 
This drill monkey has a PhD in drilling. That's why I hold drilling licenses in two states.

Always knew you were a smart cookie. Do the folks at home call you Doctor Drill?
 
This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.[19] It created a loophole that exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations that would normally be required under federal clean water laws — see exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law. The loophole is commonly known as the "Halliburton loophole" since former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was reportedly instrumental in its passage.[20] The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 111th United States Congress adjourned on January 3, 2011, without taking any significant action on the FRAC Act. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[6] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[7]
As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[8][9]

Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By law, any reportable material introduced into a water well, or oil well, has to be documented. It's one of the things that has to be entered into a drillers log, that has to be submitted to the state.
 
This drill monkey has a PhD in drilling. That's why I hold drilling licenses in two states.

That works.

Post up some papers you've written that actually prove what you're saying.

Or, if you don't write papers, post up some papers by folks in the field who do.

I maintain that your grasp of WWII history is deplorable, but if you're an expert in this field and can substantiate your claims, as I've said I'll maintain an open mind.

And I appologize for patronizing you.
 
By law, any reportable material introduced into a water well, or oil well, has to be documented. It's one of the things that has to be entered into a drillers log, that has to be submitted to the state.
We are not talking about water or oil wells, we are talking about gas wells. The Halliburton Loophole for gas well fracking still exists., "Dr. Apdst".
 
That works.

Post up some papers you've written that actually prove what you're saying.

Or, if you don't write papers, post up some papers by folks in the field who do.

I maintain that your grasp of WWII history is deplorable, but if you're an expert in this field and can substantiate your claims, as I've said I'll maintain an open mind.

And I appologize for patronizing you.

Why don't you prove me wrong? Because you can't.
 
OMG! It's the ssme thing!
OMG....someone who supposedly has PhD in gas well drilling...is claiming that the FEDERAL laws covering gas fracking....ARE THE SAME FOR OIL AND WATER WELLS!

It is as if the Halliburton Loophole....is something that does not exist!

WOW!
 
Yes, he teaches gas well engineers, developed computer models for fracking....

What is amazing is that a leading scientist in the development of fracking tech.....is unknown to someone with a "PhD" in the same area of study.

Again, why are you refering me to water well info, the subject I am commenting on is gas well fracking.

As I daid, it's all the dame thing.

MUDPRO - Drilling Mud Reporting | Drilling Software
 
Back
Top Bottom