oh shit

Hello, if you can get a hold of them, I'd recommend these papers: For a (mostly) balanced introduction on fracking: King, G., 2012. Hydraulic fracturing 101: What Every Representitive, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Oil and Gas Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. For the key study which showed that leaking gas wells could cause methane contamination of groundwater: Osborn, S., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. & Jackson, R., 2011. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science. For the study which then showed that methane contamination in the study above actually came from shallower depths rather than the shale gas reservoir itself (which isn't much better from an environmental standpoint, but still interesting): Molofsky, L. et al., 2013. Evalutation of methane sources in groundwater in Northeastern Pennysylvania. Groundwater, Volume 51, pp. 333-349. For a summary on the statistics of well leakages: Davies, R. et al., 2014. Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation. Marine and Petroleum Geology, Volume 56, pp. 239-254. If you're looking for papers which shows fracking can contaminate drinking water with fracking fluid, then you might struggle, most of the data I've found suggests there's far more risk of spills at surface (trucks containing the fluid crashing, tanks leaking etc), which is indirectly related. If you're looking for papers which suggest how these fracking problems in the US may be related to the fact the US has huge problems with hundreds of thousands of old oil/gas wells creating easy and relatively untraceable ways for methane to get to surface, then you're welcome to read my paper (if it ever gets published). :-)

Greetings your comment is the best comment I have ever read on the Internet since the first time I used a computer in the early 80’s. On point, succinct, no insults, intelligent and so good that it warranted a great secondary comment supporting it. Also, it’s so good that it required a comment twice as long (this one) to describe its greatness. IMHO lol Kudos to you

Cited sources? You must be new to the internet. Welcome!

yeah its extremely weird to expect laymen to use reputable sources; seems like the premise of a sci fi novel.

They know; but they don't care! They just Want cheap abundant gas!

There's no reason to ban fracking.

Man, I sure disagree. So does a lot of science. And whichever side you're on of an issue, an industry should not be able to get your city's vote overturned for their own profit.

Welcome to the truth of this world. We are slaves of those who have money. They feed us, give us clothes, work, etc. We have no choice but to obey.

+Vals Rekening somehow that does not surprise me! Good story and I'm sure I'll be laughing next time at the pump!

+eilsel2323 Complete nonsense that the community cannot ban it. As if they're saying they know what's better for us than we do.

I stand corrected, but I still think giving them to oil companies is a bad idea.

Instead how about eliminating subsidies to everyone!

That article only talks about tax subsidies. When other subsidy types are brought into the picture, oil companies still come out way on top: www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf From the study: Fossil fuel subsidies = $72B Green subsidies = $29B (half of which are for corn ethanol)

Nolan Thiessen Yes, but per megawatt hour, renewables get a lot more subsidy. Like in the range of hundreds of dollars per megawatt hour for solar. Fossil fuels get less than a dollar per megawatt hour and nuclear gets a few dollars per megawatt hour.

ObadiahtheSlim True enough. However subsidy calculations never include social externalities. Things like health costs and government costs to secure fossil fuels (see: the Carter Doctrine) cost trillions of dollars to the global economy (www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2713&ArticleID=9468&l=en) every year. This is why the Clean Air Act is considered one of the most important pieces of US legislation of the 20th century. Last calculation I saw said it had saved over $100 billion in private and public spending (www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/02/27/clean-air-regulations-cost-us-21-billion-per-year-economist/). While not actual subsidies, these expenditures should be included when discussing the financial 'freebies' for fossil fuels. From the UN link: "Coal-fired power in Eastern Asia and in Northern America rank 1 and 3, respectively estimated at US$ 453 billion per annum in Eastern Asia and US$ 317 billion in North America. These consist of the damage impacts of GHG emissions, and the health costs and other damage due to air pollution. In both instances, these social costs exceeded the production value of the sector." This means that fossil fuel externalities are actually greater than the value of the fossil fuel production/use. SO why isn't the price of fossil fuels double? Because the government and private citizens pay through other means. Sounds a heck of a lot like a subsidy to me.

You should look up the fallout universe 😂

@@MazeMaker4Life dead franchise

@@MazeMaker4Life Nuclear energy isn't dangerous at all, but a few freak accidents a century ago when technology was less developed and some video game/movie franchises managed to convince far too many people that it's hazardous

More like correct the public on its misperceptions of nuclear.

***** you agree with me then say that my comment is fear based and not fact. I am confused. What is your real position.

4 years later and fracking is booming producing 11 million barrels of crude a day more than Saudi Arabia and Russia and there is still no great fracking catastrophe you liberals predicted.

You seriously think they can have control of what happens after the initial extraction of gas has been completed? There is still a third of the fluid down there doing what it was designed for, a continuation of seeking out and breaking open more of the earth. It is also estimated that the cement used in the well casing will eventually fail, what then for the water supply in the future. ANY procedure where we have to drill THROUGH aquifers in the first instance must pose a risk of contamination to fresh water. A risk that, (no matter how small), should NOT be taken.

It is evident that you are very unfamiliar with this subject. I can see that you've read a few blurbs about hydraulic fracturing, but don't have any real understanding of the process. The work of fracturing the formation is done with immense pressure. The formation is pressurized to well above the ordinary hydrostatic pressure by thousands of PSI in some instances. Hydrostatic pressure accumulates at around half a psi per foot, while overburden (rock pressure) builds at around a full psi per foot. These formations are tough; it takes thousands of horsepower and five, ten, 15, or more pumper trucks to complete the operation. As soon as the pressure is relieved, the formation snaps back and closes these fractures so efficiently that we have to pump sand in to hold the cracks open. The chemicals that are pumped down are consumed during the fracture process, and pose very little threat to the environment after their initial usage. It is true that acids and chemicals are pumped down, but these are consumed dissolving the formation and literally pose no threat to the environment -after- the operation is over. The chemicals and fracturing water that remain after the first few hours, days, or weeks of production are -permanently- bound in the formation rock ten thousand feet below the water table. Permanently. This is just the way the wetting and capillary nature of the rock matrix works (ever try to get oil stains out of your driveway? same exact deal). A properly constructed well bore has -minimum- five to seven layers of protection that separate the produced fluids from the surrounding earth near the water table. Sure, some companies don't build their well bores to proper spec, but they are the minority. If you care enough, why don't you make a career of tracking down these cowboys who don't follow the rules? You'll do far more good than posting erroneous comments on youtube will ever do for the environment.

truthchannel200tv Sometimes it's better just to trust the experts, truthchannel200tv. These subjects are so complicated that you'd have to devote years of directed work to fully understand them. This is a clear example. :>

Kyle Gregory AND it is evident that you only look at the issue from a technical standpoint and I have done MUCH more than read a few blurbs. Every subject that I ever form strong opinions about are preceded by lengthy research from both sides of an argument. I prefer to look at the evidence. Can you say the same? I am not going to name names but I know someone who formerly worked at a high level in the hydrocarbons industry for over 20 years and has done a massive amount of INDEPENDANT research during his time in the industry and recently regarding the fracking process. I can't say I hang on his every word and he wouldn't want me to anyway :-) but he planted seeds which I have nurtured and many facts (not theories), have sprouted as it were. Science has it's place but how many theories in history arrived at through clever calculation and design have resulted in damaging unreliable technology being developed. Are you aware why (official) underground nuclear testing was eventually stopped? As much as it may shock you, we were only several explosions away from breaking the planet apart quite literally. So how many global fracks will it take to do the same, this however is my Theory. You said it yourself the wells are drilled very deep! When one forgets about what the industry has to say (which is only what they want the public to hear), or the technical aspects and then uses plain common sense and god given logic; this is what is apparent to me from my research. 1) Ariel views of gas fields elsewhere in the world are mainly void of vegetation and look like a battle has recently taken place on the ground and all the wreckage and bodies has been removed. 2) We are living on a large ball which humans have already seriously extracted other resources like oil and conventional gas reserves from why do we wonder that "sink-holes" are appearing all over the globe. 3) Governments keep harping on about carbon emissions and you cannot deny that even if methane does not escape from wells, how much extra CO2 will be released when gasses are "flared" off from wells. 4) I want to make this brief so will sum up some more points in this paragraph. All that follows can be proven. In the USA many families have to have their water shipped in and are using water "buffalo's" for storage. These are supplied by the energy industry following contamination by fracking. There are areas where unusually high levels of people are getting sick after the industry moves in. One documentary I saw showed how an older couples dream retirement property has it's pond completely poisoned and it was shown to be a result of nearby fracking. The evidence goes on and on, even if 90% of the wells cause no problems the rest will cause massive amounts of damage to the environment and life relating to pollution of air water and soil. And what are you and your family (either present or future generations), going to do when fresh water stocks are so depleted that they all have to buy the stuff. One analyst estimated in the future it could be more expensive per litre that petroleum or even the gas. I would sooner suffer the rising prices of petrol as supplies run out in the knowledge that alternative energy generation techniques will be developed in time (and I am not talking about wind power or solar). I drive a car and heat my very well insulated modest home with LPG but everywhere I can I make every an effort to be minimalistic in the use and consumption of material resources. If everyone followed this model we may have a chance and not have to break apart the planet which is our home and life support system. I am semi retired and choose to spend a great deal of my time researching many subjects which I KNOW are being presented to the public in a misleading way. So please just open you mind temporarily to have a think about my views and maybe do some independent research of your own. Nikola Tesla had the insights into how the world could be fuelled indefinitely and I suspect his work is in a corporate or bank vault somewhere and will only be uncovered and used when the greed of big companies and corporations has decimated our beautiful planet by depleting every last litre of fossil fuel and probably the fresh water supplies as well. You may wish to stick to your views after reading this and that is fine, we at least have not yet, lost our right to express our opinion and I do respect that and hope others respect my rights also. I do not wish to debate the issue with yourself any further as time is precious, I have said my piece and now wish to move on, there are so many truths to uncover and research to do. Thank you.

I understand you don't wish to discuss this further, but I must address your argument for the sake of any potential future readers. You may or may not have spoken to some industry source about this subject, but the truth does not matter if you can't or are unwilling to put a name to it. For this guy's words and opinions to matter, he MUST be held accountable for them so they can be discussed. This is just how the world works; nobody will believe you or him otherwise so you are wasting your time. Point One: What you say about this nuclear testing is absurd. There is nothing man is capable of now or in the past that could even come close to "literally breaking the planet apart." The amount of energy released in a low profile earth quake puts the most powerful of our weapons to shame. Mankind is incapable of any activity that could wreak the sort of havoc you speak of. Point Two: Yes, we do drill deep. But it's only deep by human standards. The deepest of our wells only reach 5-6 km true vertical depth. We only drill for hydrocarbons in the upper crustal regions of the earth's radius. The crust in its DEEPEST and THICKEST areas such as on mountainous continental regions is around 30 km thick. The crust is but a smear of what makes up the total volume of the earth. It is the layer of dust that forms on top of the shoe box in your closet. To help you understand the proportions, we'll use the Kola Superdeep Borehole as our example. And it's not even an oil well (it was drilled for scientific endeavor), but is about two-three times as deep as your typical oil well. The radius of the earth is approximately 6400 km depending on where you are in latitudinal orientation. This well is less than two thousands of a percent the total depth to the center of the earth. Point Three: A great number of wells drilled in the United States today are in farmers fields, areas overrun with nature, etc. If these natural gas fields were destroying the surface of the earth, don't you think our American farmers would have complained about this by now? Wouldn't we have heard about it in the news? I'm talking about something other than the occasional claim that a pond was contaminated, what have you. Point Four: Can't really argue about CO2 emissions. If you wanted to avoid CO2 emissions, modern society would cease to exist, famine would abound, etc. If this bothers you, send your children to college to be scientists and engineers so we can work on a solution a little faster. It's just a hiccup along the way of societal advancement. Point Five: Families are having water shipped in from elsewhere simply because we are using so much damn water. People treat water like it's dirt. Our aquifers are depleting faster than they are recharging, and you can't blame the petroleum industry for that at all. Sure, we may use some of this water during various operations, but the majority of it is wasted through civil misuse and apathy. TL;DR: If you don't like it, send your children to college to be scientists and engineers so we can have better solutions to our problems. Fracturing is the only way economic way for us to maintain our quality of life. And it's not just a matter of paying an extra 20% on the power bill. It's the entire United States held hostage to Russia and the Middle East, gas that costs 10, 15, 20, or more dollars per gallon, and what have you.

Pennsylvania has NOT banned fracking and it is not true that it is closer to fresh water.

Usually found, deep underground, in giant beds of shale Dark money it wanes, it shrinks, it pales in comparison to Armageddon's wail

+Wesley Medford Science loves conclusions. This is one conclusion that barely needs revisitation: fracking is REALLY bad. Not to mention, it's incredibly inefficient compared to worldwide advances in wind, solar tidal and geothermal power.

Stern Dragoon Science doesn't love conclusions. It likes specifically applicable rules and data. Making a general, qualitative, and comparative statement is about as anti-science as it gets. As for saying it's bad, that's not exactly a founded notion. Gas as a whole is still cheaper than wind or solar. Tidal and geothermic both face logistic issues that Gas doesn't. As for its efficiency in comparison to other petroleum extraction methods, it's actually incredibly efficient.

+Wesley Medford What the fuck are you talking about, "Science doesn't love conclusions"? Of course they do. In fact, that's there everyday goal god damn it! That's what they aim to get towards! Stop with your bullshit and just accept that fracking is bad for the environment.

Sentry Here! Did you read my comment? My entire point is that stating fracking is bad is like stating H2O is wet. While in the majority of human experiences that is true, it isn't true for the majority of the rest of the solar system because it's very frozen or very gaseous. Fracking's impact on the environment has been difficult to gauge because there is a vast difference between fracking practices and the locations fracking wells are in are far from homogenous.

Wesley Medford You're explaining stuff that I already know. No rebuttal? Ok. Argument ended.

on average most Oil and gas Wells produce 7 barrels of water per 1 barrel of crude oil.

I think you said that backwards lol. Since they don't produce water :P

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LEAVE ANGRY COMMENTS AND ARGUE POINTLESSLY? TAKE YOUR USEFUL IDEAS ELSEWHERE!

That could help lessen large seismic events from happening, or it could make faults larger, or even make new faults, if done over a period of time, and on a large scale, it could be a good idea though.

no you use sheeps bladders to prevent earthquakes

seriously though I think pumping water into the ground will soften it until all the land flattens out and the entire earhs surface is underwater

Nabre Labre Please tell us more about this water that can be both in the oceans and also cover the landmass at the same time... its either or, not both!!!

define tiny? I couldn't afford to pay one of those fines in 20 lifetimes

kristopher holm Compare the fine to profit, and savings from not doing it properly.

The fine aren't exactly tiny. I believe Amitek was fined $600,000 dollars for pullution and was threatened to have it doubled if they didn't meet deadlines in 2011.

600,000 dollars for a oil&gas company is nothing!

Well if it happens on multiple occasions there is the money and then there how you look to the public. People or businesses might start avoiding your oil and gas.

Bonga Rozani Still, (and I acknowledge your point) fracking permanently destroys groundwater and pollutes ancient aquifers. Also, Hank was right about the earthquakes. I live in Colorado, which all Coloradans know to be a very stable area of the continent. However, seismic activity has increased, and I'm not so sure how much longer we have until we start experiencing some shakes. I agree with you, coal is some nasty stuff, but I believe the large corporations (the same ones that pay to have this stuff pulled from the media and overshadowed by less pressing things *cough*bruce jenner*cough*) need to invest their immense wealth into cleaner sources of electricity i.e. solar and wind power.

I always tend to ask environmentalists to tell me what car they drive? What shoes do you wear? Do you drink bottled water! How about if they use electricity? Environmentalists are like PETA people with leather shoes and purses, such a joke!

I Know it is way late. But BP had to pay a $20 billion fine on top of shelling out $28 billion for the cleanup of the gulf.

Yea,that would be nice...but the fact that were human,imperfect,liable to making mistakes...it's just an u fair thing if you truly think about it...and to point at the finger at the companies,how do you think the companies feel when or if,the person didn't intend to make that mistake but he is fined,and to say oh,they should definateley be held accountable...no slack,when they bring us all they do...it's kind of,I don't know...I'd say it kind of feels a bit arrogant in our part,I mean...it's like,someone helps you,sure...they get paid,but I think in q time where the world is so demanding Buda pressure,so much that time and patience isn't what it used to be,therefore...collectiveley bringing a cycle if just do it...to try to appease everyone...even if their intention isn't exactly to please us...still...nothing good can come from a people who have lost patience,u derstandi f,and humility...it never goes well in the simplest of ezaples,such as a family,one has to understand the other,and until one humbles him or hersf,things will oy eacate,demanding your partner or child to do something,will sy make them either not do it,or give up,and leave...I imagine the spirit of demand,of the so many,and the spirit of trying to please,left many nations just left to their own domise.if we look at Venezuela,it's mostly crowded cities ..we wanted for to much,expected much,to much was given,taken...now it's all rube and trash they're stuck with,their own stuff...because goverment won't pick it up anymore...same can happen here .. we'd be angry because no trash pick up...so,who's was it,what if we're left to our own mess,no goverment to pick it up...we say,give me,give me...if they decide,they can say,you de with it...I don't have to pick up after u greatful,demanding people...not one person in government per say...but sort of the effect,or the spirit it creates in goverment as a whole,which is normally caused by several ,selling it's people out...they give up,say to the buyer,do what you want...not my problem anymore ..

Moderation is key in a world that requires a balancing act.

Indeed, too much of ANYthing can (& usually WILL)fuck up a perfect planet. I believe that if we could all just plant more seeds and live off the land like we're supposed to.

Or instead use the same money to build renewable earthquake free energy resources. Germany is already getting a large fraction of its energy supply by renewables. Considering how much more sun energy hits the US this should be a no-brainer.

Alexis Fountain Not just doing it in moderation but also responsibly and having it tightly regulated.

Agreed. Make sure they do it right.

Frequency, magnitude and duration?

Its a little less right now. But we where getting 2 a week for a while. around 5.6 magnitude. lasting up to a minute or so. I did not accurately time them.

we in Holland Groningen have tremors by gas winning

Lord Kiyo I am from Texas we get the after effects that are like just a little shake

I did not think you would feel them from over there. Since most of the quakes are over 100 miles from the Texas boarder.

This is cool. I hope they find less environmentally damaging ways to accomplish that than as a side effect of actively damaging the environment.

+The Bonesaw .. fracking toaster skinjobs

And the video!