# Why Fracking Is Dangerous



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is an interesting article about oil fracking, regarding the proposition of drilling substantially more wells per 640 acres than is presently being done.

There is some dispute in the industry, regarding the profitability vs cost of doing so.

The article does some basic mathematics..........discussing the viability of added more wells per 640 acres of land.

There is something missing in the article though.

It is all about money..........money for the oil companies......production numbers and risk/reward considerations, but there isn't a single word about the environmental consequences and cost.

The amount of money involved is huge.........and it isn't surprising the oil companies are interested, but some consideration on possible negative effects of making "swiss cheese" out of the land..........blasting a higher intensity level of sand into the underground structure.......and walking away leaving the holes in the ground.............really a good idea?

I am not against oil companies making money..........or land owners benefiting financially.........or people having good jobs.

But shouldn't we consider what might happen to the land..........the water..........and what is left behind ?

Hence...fracking is dangerous because the potential for huge amounts of money creates focus on only one thing.....money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...mming-wells-in-risky-push-to-extend-boom.html


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> *I am not against oil companies making money..........or land owners benefiting financially.........or people having good jobs.
> *
> But shouldn't we consider what might happen to the land..........the water..........and what is left behind ?
> 
> Hence...fracking is dangerous because the potential for huge amounts of money creates focus on only one thing.....money.


Yes, it is "frackin" dangerous to the land. Injecting water into the ground to break up shale and release nat gas is
an innovative way..but there are consequences from that.



> Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site.
> - It takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job.
> - Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as:Lead, Uranium, mercury,
> ethylene glycol (antifreeze), hydrochloric acid, methonol, etc....
> ...


Sounds like we all will be paying dearly for those profits from fracking in the long run..



> DRINKING WATER
> Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns.
> 
> There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It's an iconic image, captured in the 2010 Academy Award—nominated documentary GasLand. A Colorado man holds a flame to his kitchen faucet and turns on the water. The pipes rattle and hiss, and suddenly a ball of fire erupts. It appears a damning indictment of the gas drilling nearby. But Colorado officials determined the gas wells weren't to blame; instead, the homeowner's own water well had been drilled into a naturally occurring pocket of methane. 

Same old alarmist crap...can't we forget fracking & focus on dying more from Ebola?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eder said:


> It's an iconic image, captured in the 2010 Academy Award—nominated documentary GasLand. A Colorado man holds a flame to his kitchen faucet and turns on the water. The pipes rattle and hiss, and suddenly a ball of fire erupts. It appears a damning indictment of the gas drilling nearby. But Colorado officials determined the gas wells weren't to blame; instead, the homeowner's own water well had been drilled into a naturally occurring pocket of methane.
> 
> Same old alarmist crap...can't we forget fracking &* focus on dying more from Ebola*?


We have a thread on that too.:biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

There is already a thread on the dangers of fracking.
*The fear of fracking*

Perhaps we should continue the discussion there.
There's already several pages of discussion, including discussing specific strategies such as dry drilling.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> There is already a thread on the dangers of fracking.
> *The fear of fracking*
> 
> Perhaps we should continue the discussion there.
> There's already several pages of discussion, including discussing specific strategies such as dry drilling.



I guess then we shouldn't be bringing up parallel threads on the same subject?

Although if that thread is a few years old, we don't always check back to see when it was first posted or when the last post was made.
Therefore, we could consider this one...Fears of why frackin' is frackin' dangerous! " ?:biggrin:
carry on, then?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

All I am saying is that continuing an existing thread enables new participants to read what has been said before.
It also shows how some of the statements made 2 - 3 years ago have panned out, whether predictions/fears have come true, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Perhaps the admin could merge the threads ?

But then inevitably, someone will say "you are responding to an old post" or something like that.

This article discusses a new development in fracking, so it isn't rehashing old discussions, I don't think.

An increase of 4 to 5 times the number of wells drilled per 640 acres, would be an evolution in fracking for oil.

Carverman raises another issue with the concept.

Already the amount of natural gas that is being flared..........lights up the night in the region on satellite images. What previously was a completely dark area at night is now lit up like a major metropolitan area.

Will increasing the number of wells drilled..........increase the degree of flaring off the excess gas ?

I would presume so ............as given the price of natural gas and lack of storage.......burning it off is the only solution.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Lots of factual, knowledgeable discussion in this thread... 
Remind me to give your future financial opinions similar weight.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

There are many aspects of fracking that someone interested in this should look into:
#1 - it is not just the water contamination. It is also the surface tremor/earthquake risk.
Look up the increasing incidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma for instance.

#2 - the economics of natural gas fracking, esp. the depletion rate and the cost/benefit analysis of it.
In particular, the amount of energy consumer to produce one unit (BTU) of energy.
Add in the energy consumed end-to-end i.e. from extraction to liquefying it to shipping it.

#3 - the politics around fracking and the production of unconventional natural gas & oil.
How this has been made into a political cause by the present US administration.
How this has been used to justify energy independence, fight the "war on terror", and pick & choose friends & foes around the world.
How the politics around this completely disregards the science, the environment, and the economics of fracking.


----------

