Hi Melinda
__,_._,___
If you ever choose to return to the technical side of your project then one area that might prove fruitful in terms of data from a slightly oblique angle would be to look at failure rates in cement jobs. I suspect the data may be difficult to come by from the fracking operations directly but there should be plenty of stats out there which have been collated over the years from conventional drilling operations and as the cementing operations are very similar - if not identical - on both cementing and fracking operations then the data from one, I would contend, would be a good indicator of the likely data from the other. Not perfect science I would agree but it would have a good indicative value and it would then put the onus on the fracking companies to show that your data was wrong.
Basically as a well is drilled it operates like a reverse telescope. You drill a 36" hole and case it with a 30" conductor. This is then cemented in. Then you drill and 26" hole and run a 20" casing, 17 1/2" hole and 13 3/8" casing, 12 1/4" hole and 9 5/8" casing etc. The actual hole sizes and casing sizes tend to be the same the world over (with some minor variations) and although some hole sections may get missed out in some wells this is a basic pattern that is always followed. The important point is that the casing has to be properly cemented in place. This not only fixes the casing and provides a good string platform for the next hole section but it also seals off the upper portions of the hole. It is this that the fracking companies are relying upon to ensure they are not getting contamination either of drilling/fracking fluids nor of produced gas up into water aquifers.
And yet cementing is a notoriously difficult and often ineffective operation. Statistically more wells kick during cementing operations than in any other type of drilling operation due to imbalances in the fluids being pumped. At the same time the resulting cement job and seal may not be as good as the operator would like - but it may still be good enough to allow them to complete the well so long as they can persuade the authorities that it is safe. That is no guarantee that a week, a month or a year later that cement job will still be providing an effective seal.
So looking at stats for cement job failures may well help give some idea of how high the risk of contamination into aquifers is likely to be.
Richard
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
From: missmelinda99@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:23:18 +0000
Subject: [Geology2] Re: Study links earthquake activity to wastewater from fracking
__._,_.___
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
From: missmelinda99@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:23:18 +0000
Subject: [Geology2] Re: Study links earthquake activity to wastewater from fracking
Data is great. I love data. The problem in this area is there isn't enough of it available, which is why I said there needs to be more research done on the subject. For example, the issue with the methane in the water is we have no data prior to when the fracking processes started to tell us how much methane was present before hand. The issue there is no matter how much data we collect we still have nothing to compare the numbers to.
When I first started researching for this paper. I wanted data and I was getting really stressed because it just wasn't happening. I decided I was focusing on the wrong thing and since it is meant to be a social science paper maybe I should focus on the debate between both sides.
Science can be emotional too and if there is not emotional attachment to your work I see no point in doing it. Science can be neutral in some cases, but the fact is everyone has their own views and beliefs and they do sometimes let them get in way. The funding for research in science comes for somewhere and this can be an influence on the research as much as emotions can be a factor in other writings.
It is all about perspective and what angle you are writing from.
Melinda
--- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, John Rasmussen <john@...> wrote:
>
> When the articles cited actually contain scientific data to support their
> position; and well defined experiments to show their theory actually
> predicts the physical findings, there is NO data that support the
> conclusions that have been stated. Therefore, I find that all the rhetoric
> being published has no merit. It is all emotion, not science, and useless
> to form a conclusion.
>
> john
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Melinda <missmelinda99@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I have been reading all the posts on fracking and I usually don't post to
> > any of the groups. I just read the different articles. As a liberal arts
> > major with a little bit of a background in geology I feel the need to
> > respond on several levels.
> >
> > I was working on a dual degree one in geoscience and the other in
> > sociology. I have since decided to currently to just finish the sociology
> > degree. My area of focus in sociology is environmental sociology. I have
> > been researching and writing a paper on fracking.
> >
> > I feel everything I have read on the topic has been biased in some way.
> > The companies spin things in their favor because they have money on the
> > line and the extreme environmentalist groups have their spin that it is the
> > worst thing ever. The actual truth lies somewhere in between. I tried to
> > write a neutral paper on the environmental problems associated with
> > fracking last semester for a geology class and it was extremely hard to do.
> > The paper I am currently writing I a focusing on the moratorium on fracking
> > in New York and the debate between both sides.
> >
> > I am personally against fracking because natural gas is still a
> > nonrenewable resource and I feel we need to be finding other alternatives.
> > I also feel that if we are going to use fracking as a way to extract
> > natural gas and oil in some cases we need to proceed with caution and we
> > need to continue to do research on the effects of fracking. We have a lot
> > of great theories in geology about how things work within the Earth, but
> > there are still uncertainties involved. I personally believe that the
> > fracking processes can cause earthquakes or at least seismic activity. If
> > this causes more pressure to build up along zones of weakness or allows for
> > the pressure to be released gradually is something that needs to be
> > studied.
> >
> > Melinda
> >
> > --- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, MEM <mstreman53@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately this article is "Yellow Journalism" that deliberately
> > distorted the study findings.  The study is about "waste water injection
> > proper" and the fact that less than 1% of our waste water comes from
> > hydrological fracturing operations aka fracking was deliberately omitted.
> > The headline using the term "fracking" was included to insure it fed the
> > hysteria about the "evil" fracking industry-the definition of Yellow
> > Journalism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fracking makes gas extraction greener than it ever was but don't let
> > that interfere with the rights that the lefties have to keep their panties
> > in a wad because they are easily manipulated by their science-free liberal
> > arts educations.Â
> > >
> > >
> > > I read all three papers last night and "fracking tremors" were only
> > casually mentioned to distinguish them from waste water injection well
> > triggered seismic events. Waste water injections have been going on for
> > what?--4 decades? Each Fracking well uses 10s perhaps 1-2 thousands of
> > gallons and not millions of gallons of mixture. High pressure yes, but
> > very localized and very constrained. Ergo the total energy (hydrolic
> > pressure) imparted into the environment is very small compared to
> > everything else mankind does. The tremors are from micro fractures where
> > natural lines of weakness are wedged open. Comparable to a tenth mile
> > long line of jackhammers taking a few strokes then moving to the next
> > 1/10 mile segment. I know that in Pennsylvania they have mobile waste
> > water treatment plants that capture and reprocess the waste water--with the
> > water released back into streams. Be it remembered that all the water,
> > sand, and surfactant has to be trucked
> >
> > > to the well head. Does anyone really believe that "millions" of gallons
> > of water are used in each gas production well 15-20 thousand gallons at a
> > time and then all stored on site until ready to use?
> > >
> > >
> > > Every time I see this type of journalism, I am reminded of the joke Buck
> > Henry punked the public with back in the 50s:Â The Society for the
> > Preventing Indecency in Animals. He and his friends started a joke
> > "activist society" for keeping animals clothed / diapered so their privates
> > weren't visible just to see how many suckers could be signed up. The press
> > took up the cause, 10s of thousands of citizens joined with no questions
> > asked. Thousands paid for posters/signs to nail to telephone poles to
> > promote the effort.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eman
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Atwell Rasmussen, Ph.D., AJP
> Rasmussen Gems and Jewelry LLC
> <http://handmadeartists.com/shop/rasmussengems>
> "A Time to Stop Living at Work; A Time to Start Working at Living."
>
When I first started researching for this paper. I wanted data and I was getting really stressed because it just wasn't happening. I decided I was focusing on the wrong thing and since it is meant to be a social science paper maybe I should focus on the debate between both sides.
Science can be emotional too and if there is not emotional attachment to your work I see no point in doing it. Science can be neutral in some cases, but the fact is everyone has their own views and beliefs and they do sometimes let them get in way. The funding for research in science comes for somewhere and this can be an influence on the research as much as emotions can be a factor in other writings.
It is all about perspective and what angle you are writing from.
Melinda
--- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, John Rasmussen <john@...> wrote:
>
> When the articles cited actually contain scientific data to support their
> position; and well defined experiments to show their theory actually
> predicts the physical findings, there is NO data that support the
> conclusions that have been stated. Therefore, I find that all the rhetoric
> being published has no merit. It is all emotion, not science, and useless
> to form a conclusion.
>
> john
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Melinda <missmelinda99@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I have been reading all the posts on fracking and I usually don't post to
> > any of the groups. I just read the different articles. As a liberal arts
> > major with a little bit of a background in geology I feel the need to
> > respond on several levels.
> >
> > I was working on a dual degree one in geoscience and the other in
> > sociology. I have since decided to currently to just finish the sociology
> > degree. My area of focus in sociology is environmental sociology. I have
> > been researching and writing a paper on fracking.
> >
> > I feel everything I have read on the topic has been biased in some way.
> > The companies spin things in their favor because they have money on the
> > line and the extreme environmentalist groups have their spin that it is the
> > worst thing ever. The actual truth lies somewhere in between. I tried to
> > write a neutral paper on the environmental problems associated with
> > fracking last semester for a geology class and it was extremely hard to do.
> > The paper I am currently writing I a focusing on the moratorium on fracking
> > in New York and the debate between both sides.
> >
> > I am personally against fracking because natural gas is still a
> > nonrenewable resource and I feel we need to be finding other alternatives.
> > I also feel that if we are going to use fracking as a way to extract
> > natural gas and oil in some cases we need to proceed with caution and we
> > need to continue to do research on the effects of fracking. We have a lot
> > of great theories in geology about how things work within the Earth, but
> > there are still uncertainties involved. I personally believe that the
> > fracking processes can cause earthquakes or at least seismic activity. If
> > this causes more pressure to build up along zones of weakness or allows for
> > the pressure to be released gradually is something that needs to be
> > studied.
> >
> > Melinda
> >
> > --- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, MEM <mstreman53@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately this article is "Yellow Journalism" that deliberately
> > distorted the study findings.  The study is about "waste water injection
> > proper" and the fact that less than 1% of our waste water comes from
> > hydrological fracturing operations aka fracking was deliberately omitted.
> > The headline using the term "fracking" was included to insure it fed the
> > hysteria about the "evil" fracking industry-the definition of Yellow
> > Journalism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fracking makes gas extraction greener than it ever was but don't let
> > that interfere with the rights that the lefties have to keep their panties
> > in a wad because they are easily manipulated by their science-free liberal
> > arts educations.Â
> > >
> > >
> > > I read all three papers last night and "fracking tremors" were only
> > casually mentioned to distinguish them from waste water injection well
> > triggered seismic events. Waste water injections have been going on for
> > what?--4 decades? Each Fracking well uses 10s perhaps 1-2 thousands of
> > gallons and not millions of gallons of mixture. High pressure yes, but
> > very localized and very constrained. Ergo the total energy (hydrolic
> > pressure) imparted into the environment is very small compared to
> > everything else mankind does. The tremors are from micro fractures where
> > natural lines of weakness are wedged open. Comparable to a tenth mile
> > long line of jackhammers taking a few strokes then moving to the next
> > 1/10 mile segment. I know that in Pennsylvania they have mobile waste
> > water treatment plants that capture and reprocess the waste water--with the
> > water released back into streams. Be it remembered that all the water,
> > sand, and surfactant has to be trucked
> >
> > > to the well head. Does anyone really believe that "millions" of gallons
> > of water are used in each gas production well 15-20 thousand gallons at a
> > time and then all stored on site until ready to use?
> > >
> > >
> > > Every time I see this type of journalism, I am reminded of the joke Buck
> > Henry punked the public with back in the 50s:Â The Society for the
> > Preventing Indecency in Animals. He and his friends started a joke
> > "activist society" for keeping animals clothed / diapered so their privates
> > weren't visible just to see how many suckers could be signed up. The press
> > took up the cause, 10s of thousands of citizens joined with no questions
> > asked. Thousands paid for posters/signs to nail to telephone poles to
> > promote the effort.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eman
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Atwell Rasmussen, Ph.D., AJP
> Rasmussen Gems and Jewelry LLC
> <http://handmadeartists.com/shop/rasmussengems>
> "A Time to Stop Living at Work; A Time to Start Working at Living."
>
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment