Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibby
Meh. Very glad that Vermont's banned that shit.
|
To be bold, Vermont banned fracking because they are just as anti-intellectual as the anti-climate change group. The only difference is that they vote for different parties. Now I am not an expert on hydraulic fracturing, but as someone who has done a lot of work in rock mechanics I know enough to realize that almost every claim by the anti-fracking crowd is unrepresentative, if not outright wrong.
Hydraulic fracturing is a potentially dangerous method that can cause massive environmental harm if performed irresponsibly. There will always be an inherent risk with gas and oil extraction from fracking methods, but most if not all risk can be reduced to basically nothing if performed correctly.
I will admit that oil, gas, and especially mining companies tend to be oblivious to public opinion and concerns and that is something that needs to change. They know that they are an indispensable resource and many hold the "too big to fail" mindset. Yet, to completely work against these companies, like banning fracking, is no different than outright banning derivatives on wall street.
Quickly onto the science.
1) Fracturing shale will not cause the oil or gas to reach natural aquifers. Shale reserves are many THOUSANDS of feet underground while aquifers are usually less than a hundred. Also, shale is a weak rock and only occupies a smaller layer of the overall geology. This means that there are THOUSANDS of feet of more competent, impermeable rock that will not allow any gas or oil to reach the drinking water.
What can happen is that gas or oil leaks from the borehole (well). This can easily be prevented by highly insulating the borehole depths where drinking water is present.
2) Now I don't have too much knowledge of the chemicals used in process but basically they included to make the rock more viscous (why else would they do it??) and to mitigate other issues that can arise.
This link gives a list of some of the additives and the reason for their use.
http://www.chk.com/Media/Educational...Fact_Sheet.pdf
3) Fracking will not magically cause earthquakes. Just so you guys are aware, I am defining earthquake as something that will cause damage to surface structures. Fracking will cause micro-seismic events (the fracturing itself) but these alone will not produce anything over 4.5 or so on the Richter scale (remember the Richter scale is exponential!).
In order for a earthquake to occur, the stress (forces) on a fault must be greater than the resistance (this is a simplification!). In rare circumstances, it is possible for rock fractures to cause a stress redistribution which can overly stress a fault. But, this can easily be prevented by initially identifying these risky regions and avoiding them. To my knowledge, this is already happening.
To add to my argument, a study was performed determining the contamination from each stage at drilling. The injection (hydraulic fracturing) process was found to be the LEAST damaging!
http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_s...tion120215.pdf
In summary, hydraulic fracturing is an important technique that is inherently risky, but manageable if performed correctly. I, and other people in the field, will admit that there is a lack of consistency between companies and how the frack. This leads some companies to cut corners and damage the surrounding environment, harming the process for everyone.
This is number one concern environmentalists should be focused on. Put more regulation on fracking, don't outright ban it.