• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gasland movie and fracking

fincoder

New Blood
F
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
15
Has anyone here seen the documentary Gasland?

Film-maker Josh Fox uncovers serious contamination of ground-water due to fracking (used to extract natural gas). Millions of gallons of water mixed with tons of dangerous chemicals including benzene are forced into the earth, with only half the fluid recovered.

The modern fracking procedure including the cocktail of chemicals was developed by Halliburton, and the Bush/Cheney government exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Natural gas exploration is occuring in many places, including near me in NSW Australia. Should we all be worried about fracking?
 
fincoder said:
Has anyone here seen the documentary Gasland?

Film-maker Josh Fox uncovers serious contamination of ground-water due to fracking (used to extract natural gas). Millions of gallons of water mixed with tons of dangerous chemicals including benzene are forced into the earth, with only half the fluid recovered.

The modern fracking procedure including the cocktail of chemicals was developed by Halliburton, and the Bush/Cheney government exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Natural gas exploration is occuring in many places, including near me in NSW Australia. Should we all be worried about fracking?
Click to expand...
Here is a website set up to debunk the claims in this film.
The site, Energy in Depth, is a site promoting small independent US petroleum producers.

They address each of the claims by the film maker and in particular the purported exemption you quoted above. It should be fairly easy to determine which account is the most accurate.

The site claims, (amongst other things) that, "Hydraulic fracturing has been employed since 1903, and was made commercially viable in 1949. There have been no instances of contaminated drinking water in that time."

I think they may be as guilty of over-egging their view as the film maker has been.
 
The process has been going on since 1903 may be true. But I do believe that the new and improved mixture of chemicals being used to displace should cause some concern....
 
wunky said:
The process has been going on since 1903 may be true. But I do believe that the new and improved mixture of chemicals being used to displace should cause some concern....
Click to expand...
Not if they are unable to migrate into an aquifer.

It is isolating the aquifer from the wellbore and the reservoir (be it, oil, gas or coal) that is the more important issue as far as groundwater contamination is concerned.

OK, the chemical make up of any downhole fluid should not be ignored, but in this case, it is migration of fluids from the wellbore and reservoir to the groundwater that is the issue.
 
fincoder said:
Natural gas exploration is occuring in many places, including near me in NSW Australia. Should we all be worried about fracking?
Click to expand...
Here are some statutes that might interest you.
  • Water Act 2000
  • Environmental Protection Act 1994​
  • Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1997​
  • Petroleum Act 1923​
  • Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004​
  • Water Resource (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006​
  • Great Artesian Basin Resource Operations Plan 2007.​
  • Queensland Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy 2008 (look for an NSW equivalent)​


    ​
The above was gleaned from an environmental impact study (or EIS) for a coal seam gas project.

If you are worried, find out who is operating near you (or on the aquifers you're worried about) and find the EIS for the projects.​

Each project should have to submit an EIS before starting, or changing the operational scope.
ETA: Here's a start - http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/minerals​
 
Last edited:
fincoder said:
Has anyone here seen the documentary Gasland?

Film-maker Josh Fox uncovers serious contamination of ground-water due to fracking (used to extract natural gas). Millions of gallons of water mixed with tons of dangerous chemicals including benzene are forced into the earth, with only half the fluid recovered.

The modern fracking procedure including the cocktail of chemicals was developed by Halliburton, and the Bush/Cheney government exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Natural gas exploration is occuring in many places, including near me in NSW Australia. Should we all be worried about fracking?
Click to expand...

Benzene? Chemicals? Bush/Cheney? Halliburton? THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!11!!!111!
 
Yes, you have a legitimate right to be concerned by any enterprise which pumps fluid into aquifers.
As with any engineering project, some will justify more concern than others.
No guarantees of isolation can be given without total knowledge of sub surface geology.
We never have total knowledge of sub surface geology.

We do know more about some areas than others.
 
EHocking said:
The site, Energy in Depth, is a site promoting small independent US petroleum producers.

They address each of the claims by the film maker and in particular the purported exemption you quoted above. It should be fairly easy to determine which account is the most accurate.

The site claims, (amongst other things) that, "Hydraulic fracturing has been employed since 1903, and was made commercially viable in 1949. There have been no instances of contaminated drinking water in that time."

I think they may be as guilty of over-egging their view as the film maker has been.
Click to expand...

The Energy in Depth organisation, according to their About page under Who Are We, are "America's natural gas and oil producers - the majority of which are small independent businesses" (my emphasis). So they represent all gas producers, and the largest ones will obviously be less in number.

Josh Fox (Gasland director) has responded (gaslandthemovie.com/about-the-film/affirming-gasland) to the Energy in Depth site in detail, debunking the debunker. To my reading his arguments are well supported.
 
fincoder said:
...Josh Fox (Gasland director) has responded (gaslandthemovie.com/about-the-film/affirming-gasland) to the Energy in Depth site in detail, debunking the debunker. To my reading his arguments are well supported.
Click to expand...
Cool.

Let the games begin!! :D
 
Soapy Sam said:
Yes, you have a legitimate right to be concerned by any enterprise which pumps fluid into aquifers.
Click to expand...
The other concern with CSG projects is water usage and disposal. In very simple terms, the frac fluids and any produced water are pumped out of the wellbore and (generally) held in surface pits which are generally reinjected.

There is concern that the water usage could affect agricultural access to these aquifers as well as potential pollution.

Problems with surface pits are leaks and therefore leaching and other potential surface pollution problems, as well as the area that is required to be cleared for them.
As with any engineering project, some will justify more concern than others.
No guarantees of isolation can be given without total knowledge of sub surface geology.
We never have total knowledge of sub surface geology.

We do know more about some areas than others.
Click to expand...
Equally, even with wellbore isolation, the issue of migration of injected fluids from the coal bed seam to aquifers (the nub of the issue raised in the film, I think?) may not be well understood and the risk understated.

I see that one such project is drilling beneath Sydney's main drinking water reservoir. One does get the impression, reading the news items, that the reviews of approvals to drill and EIS appear to have been rushed through by government bodies.

Remember (not directed at you SS).
It's not just the oil and gas companies that have a stake in profiting from these activities. Governments "earn" a load as well.
 
geoman said:
meh, I work in the oil industry and even I'm not that interested in reading counter-counter-claims. (Especially when I've not seen the movie to start with.)
Click to expand...
M3 too, as does Soapy Sam.

I'm interested in picking apart the verifiable facts that each side brings.
Also, I'm going to be moving back to Oz in the near future, so have at least some small personal stake in the subject (even if it may be a NIMBY one).

It was surprising how interesting things got in the thread on the BP blowout. Refuting some of the more outlandish claims being made at the time kept a few of us entertained for quite some time, even while informing the lay public on how ignorant some of the claims were and the technologies actually being applied.
 
geoman said:
meh, I work in the oil industry and even I'm not that interested in reading counter-counter-claims. (Especially when I've not seen the movie to start with.)
Click to expand...
Urgh, actually I think you're right, having read the first few pages of the response.

All we're going to see is :catfight:

Fincoder, what area of NSW are you at? No need to be specific, but perhaps it may be more productive if we discussed the operations that you are concerned about, rather than dissecting a movie?
 
EHocking said:
Urgh, actually I think you're right, having read the first few pages of the response.

All we're going to see is :catfight:

Fincoder, what area of NSW are you at? No need to be specific, but perhaps it may be more productive if we discussed the operations that you are concerned about, rather than dissecting a movie?
Click to expand...

Northern Rivers, NSW. More specifically the lower Clarence River area (Maclean/Yamba). The company involved is Metgasco, which has started a commercial operation near Casino and is doing exploratory drilling "west of Yamba" (I'm unable to determine the exact location).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom