To Frack or not to Frack....Please help!

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


A lot of people don't know they have done it with nuclear waste too.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
What you can expect is a drilling rig onsite for a few weeks to a few months.
After that, fracking from a few weeks to a couple of months. During the fracking
trucks will rumble day and night. And then, after the site is cleared and the well
is in place, trucks will come to remove the waste water at an average rate of
two to five times a day, up to, (but rarely), ten to fifteen times a day. The life of a
well is said to be about ten to fifteen years.


If it is a hydraulic fracturing job, I would expect that in the Bakken it'll not be a couple of months. You may be able to get a list of Devon's wells in the area for the last year to find out what their turn around time on their Bakken wells are. This might help you determine if you're looking at a few days or a few months.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by rival
 


A lot of people don't know they have done it with nuclear waste too.


You think they are fracing with Nuclear waste?

In some areas there is some naturally occuring radioactivity in the shale deposits, so radioactive components might be mobilized. Are you mistaking mobilization of naturally occurring radioactive substances with a company using ratioactive waste?

I'd give you a link, but Discover Magazine hasn't got it online for open viewing yet. April or May 2011 issue. "Fracking Nation."


In response to the flammable tap water:
www.scientificamerican.com...

Many people living near fracking sites have complained of bubbly or flammable water. Methane can leak into wellwater totally naturally. A study in the May 9 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) reported a link between methane in well water and fracking operations in northeastern Pennsylvania and nearby areas of New York state (see "Methane threat to drinking water"). The authors concluded the methane was probably coming from leaky well pipes, which would mean an easy fix. But it was also possible that the fracturing process created cracks that let methane seep upwards into groundwater.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


No that's not what I said or meant to say. What I stated is that the Fed's have and still are experimenting with different ideas for storing nuclear and toxic waste, I read the reports. What I was pointing out is that there are risks taken everyday quite possible at our healths expense and I read his post as saying the same thing I did. It's just an example of two bad ideas. When you keep unnecessarily adding to the pollution problem, such as storing the effluent from the extraction of the gas from the shale deposits you make problems for the future. My town is currently dealing with a migrating toxic plume within the water table and also soil contamination I thank the Cold War for it. What I am pointing out is simply because someone or some entity with a fancy name says something is safe warning bells should be going off. Blind faith only leads to failure and future calamity's. What I am doing is supporting the poster who I was responding to. I have more faith in his observations then that of the industries. With years of experience dealing with mega corporations it has been proven to me time and time again people like him shoot straight from the hip, and are usually correct. People may not know all of the technical aspects or how certain things are done but they do have a working knowledge. These people have conversations with the engineers in a more frank and truthful manner than we will ever know. The Joe everybody's are the ones we should listen to more often. The other thing I am attempting to do is let people know there are ways to produce Base Load energy that have been drastically improved but for whatever reason are constantly hushed. You don't have to crap on the world to do something every time especially when you can do it with zero emissions. I can't say exactly what I am working on but I am well aware of the radioactivity of the effluent from there wells. PA is having difficulty filtering the radioactivity out of the waste water, it's incredibly expensive equipment.
edit on 5-6-2011 by cjdny because: Forgot something
edit on 5-6-2011 by cjdny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
[url]http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/[/ur]

Here you'll find some "debunking" of Gasland. Always worth knowing all sides of an issue.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by rival
 


Rival, I have a question that I have had a heck of a problem getting an answer for from both sides of the debate. What is the average temp of the effluent?


Immediately after fracking the water is returning back up the hole at a fast enough rate to
produce quite a bit of friction generated heat. It varies, but 100 to130 degress fahrenheit would
be a good guess. Warm enough to feel the heat when offloading or standing near a trailer full.
as the flow subsides so does the friction...usually takes a coupla weeks.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by cjdny
 


No nuclear waste going downhole around here. The water would come back up and that would make
every onsite watertank and every watertruck radioactive...including me. Of course that would
explain all these new super-powers I have


Really, the chemicals going downhole are not conspiratorial at all. They are chemicals that
suppress H2S gas, anti-rusting agents, and things like soap for lubrication.





new topics
top topics
 
44
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join