Fracking- what's your overall assessment?

Oregon_Owl

Oregon_Owl

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
77
Been about a year and a half since I left PA. Fracking was really ramping up at the time, and there were a lot of predictions of disaster. What is your honest opinion? Has the drilling effort been mostly responsible with little in the way of stream disturbance or pollution issues? Is it too early to tell (groundwater leaks to surface water on steep slopes)? Can you name any high streams of fishing significance adversely affected? Just want opinions and observations, not diatribes one way or the other Thanks.
 
People say that pipelines are no better than fracking. Cleaning up after a pipeline spill is bad but how do you clean up an aquifer if it gets tainted from fracking. I heard the argument that the drilling is cased in cement but I don't know what would happen in the event of an earthquake. I can see the argument that fracking creates jobs but I fear it will create an environmental disaster. Just my $ .02.
 
I'm not against it per say, but the rush to do it concerns me, and I'm certainly against these companies and politicians whose pockets are lined by the gas companies constantly trying to push legislation through that would skirt around environmental protection laws. Changing how streams are assessed and all that, they say its so they can streamline the process. Its so they can get around the clean water act and whatnot.

I fully support the idea that the US is now producing more gas and oil than Saudi Arabia. I'm a fan of cheap natural gas and $2.00 a gallon gasoline. That's great for the lower and middle class. I also believe natural gas is a step in the right direction. The alternative is coal, and that is an utter disaster. Do it right though. We can't let these companies have free reign over our natural resources.
 
Owl,
We have many threads on fracking in the Conservation forum and this is where we prefer to keep the threads on this important topic.

This thread will be migrated over to the Conservation forum shortly.
Thanks,
DaveW
 
Thank you. I'm looking for actual case histories of stream damage if you have them.
 
I'm still very concerned about the environmental impacts down the road. And not just for trout fishing either.
Clean water is a necessity of life. And a lot more important than saving some money on gas prices IMO
 
It might be considered safe for now, but what about 100, 500, or 1000 years from now? Concrete and steel pipe won't last forever, what about future generations? Oh that's right, let's line our corporate pockets now in the name of energy independence, and eff the generations later that have to deal with the mess that's left. You can't pump toxic chemicals into the ground and expect nothing to happen eventually. At least New York state had the balls to stand up to these bastards.
 
I haven't heard of anything 'catastrophic' yet in PA, though there have been some 'small' spills & accidents here and there. I can't say off the top of my head if any of our big name blue ribbon trout streams have been directly impacted yet. I'm thinking it's just a matter time before we see a local story similar to what just happened in the Yellowstone with yet another pipeline spill or the just reported spill of 3 million gal of fracking brine in North Dakota.
 
I can only hope for the best 4 pads approx. 20 wells and miles of pipe within 1 mile of my house.Tell you in twenty years how I make out,wish me luck.Power station is coming next.
 
Since 2008 US oil production has nearly doubled and the price of a barrel of oil has tumbled. We are now the largest oil producer in the world. Predictions that the US would become the next Saudi Arabia have come true, while predictions of environmental disaster have largely failed to materialize.

Here’s a pretty good assessment of the global implications, by Daniel Yergin, author of The Prize.: Who Will Rule the Oil Market?

The real question is: Do we fish more and drive further because gas is cheap or would that be hypocritical?
 
Concrete has a half life of about 100 years, so we know the full impact to what's happened in the ground until the concrete starts to deteriorate.

Having said that, I don't think on the front end things have been as damaging as predicted by the conservation groups totally opposed to fracking. I think from what I've seen that the impact, except for pipelines has been minimal, but the damage can be unseen, that's what we don't know, what's happening in the ground at the sites, and where is the fracking fluid going.

This last year the level of activity was very much reduced near the camp in Tioga Cty. There is still some pretty large activity in Lycoming Cty. The activity has moved to the more western region of PA.

I'll predict that impacts far into the future will be much worse than expected.
 
I think our kids will be dealing with the fallout just as we have been dealing with acid mine run off.
 
People tend to think in terms of a big spill, big fish kill that makes the newspapers. Or in terms of mine drainage where a stream is killed or severely harmed by discharges on a long term basis.

But that is not how most stream degradation occurs, and I don't think that will be the major impact of Marcellus.

IMHO, the major impact will be from landscape disturbance, added to the land disturbances already occurring from other activities, and from disturbances that have occurred historically and never healed. These include logging, both back in the day and modern times, shallow gas operations, cabin development and their access roads, and even state park developments in the watershed, including many in the floodplains and riparian areas.

So, Marcellus disturbances are added to that. And if you doubt that Marcellus land disturbances are significant, look at the photos which some websites have published. You can even go to a mapping website such as AcmeMapper and go to satellite view and take a look.

It's an additive process, a cumulative degradation. It involves direct alterations to stream channels at pipeline and access road crossings.

But also the effects of adding even more impervious surfaces to the watershed, from the drill pads and pads for water and sand handling and storage and truck access, and from all the new gas lines. Every well site must have a gas line, and every gas line has an accompanying access road to build and maintain that gas line.

Freestone streams typically have flashy flows even in their natural state, because the geology provides far less of an aquifer for water storage compared to areas with a limestone geology.

So, freestone streams are much more fragile in regard to impervious surfaces creating more stormwater runoff than limestone streams.

As the landscape goes, so go the streams. For freestone streams to thrive the forested landscape must thrive. If you convert more and more of the forested watersheds to impervious surfaces, the streams will be degraded by excessive stormwater peaks causing excessive scour, enlarging the channels, reducing pool habitat, and making them shallower.
 
Chaz wrote:
Concrete has a half life of about 100 years, so we know the full impact to what's happened in the ground until the concrete starts to deteriorate.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that?
 
tomitrout wrote:
Yep, totally safe...

http://www.wtrf.com/story/27940731/authorities-responding-to-gas-line-explosion
Click to expand...

Troutbert, in my last house (in a huge subdivision), there was a main high pressure gas line break about 600 feet from my house. Someone hit it with a backhoe. The roar was deafening, but it did not ignite.

They blamed the backhoe operator, not the gas industry and I don't recall anyone giving up natural gas.

I'm not saying it is completely safe, but poop happens.

As I said before in different context. If we want completely safe, we all need to kill ourselves. Y'all go first and I'll go around and turn out all the lights.

To answer the OP, I know of no major catastrophes over here and I'm sure it causes way less damage than coal mining.

 
franklin wrote:
Chaz wrote:
Concrete has a half life of about 100 years, so we know the full impact to what's happened in the ground until the concrete starts to deteriorate.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that?
Click to expand...

Yea, that caught my eye too. It seems to me the "half life" depends on the concrete's location and use, and even at half strength, is it not still effective for it's intended use in this case? I'd imagine a Concrete block sitting out in the weather will deteriorate much more quickly than one buried under ground because it doesn't dry out. It's basically a rock when under ground. More durable than some, less durable than others. What is the half life of a rock?

Compare a concrete driveway to the blob at the base of a fence post and see which one deteriorates more quickly. Which one better describes the context we are talking about.

I'm no expert, but...

In this case, the concrete is not used for building a dam or a large building, or even a driveway. It is used to fill the void around the casing, is it not? I'm guessing it's basically used as calking or a sealant to keep gas and fluids from migrating through previously impervious layers of rock that separate the oil and gas from upper layers and not as much structural. It is still held in place by that same impervious rock layer, is it not? It's also under great pressure from all sides. What properties are required for this task and how are they effected over time? Concrete doesn't have much sheer strength, but it does have great compression strength (crush strength). The question is, does it become less effective in keeping the gas and fluids from migrating over time? I tend to doubt to any significance.

What is the average life expectancy of one of these wells? I do know that production tapers off rather quickly on these wells. Huge volumes over the first year or two and then tapering off to something to a small fraction in 10 years. That could be extended with more fracking I suppose, but 100 years is a long time.

When the well is played out, are they not required to plug?

Most of the problems in the past were old wells that were abandoned, allowing the casing to rot out allowing previously separated layers to mingle. It's quite nasty and I'm sure you have seen this, Caz. This is no-longer allowed.

It's one thing to say, we shouldn't do it, but what's the alternative?

Coal?

Solar (apparently you haven't spent much time in NE Ohio). Wind? Those things are fine and dandy, but will never do more than dent our energy needs.

Hydro-electric?

Nuclear?

Drill in someone else's back yard and buy it from them?

I'd be happy as hell of nat gas completely replaced coal use. It also can be used to make liquid fuels including diesel fuel and is way cleaner than using oil.

When something better comes along, then replace nat gas with it.

And of course I am not saying it shouldn't be doe as safely as possible.





 
troutbert wrote:

tomitrout wrote the post that you replied to.
Click to expand...

Sorry.
 
Of course if the concrete is done under Government contract and supervision, all best are off.

link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top