# Gas Prices....Good, or Bad?



## Don M. (Dec 4, 2014)

We've been given a nice respite from high pump prices in recent weeks, and some are saying we may drop below $2 a gallon in some parts of the nation.  This seems to be due to people driving less, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, and new/unconventional sources of oil coming on line...thus creating a surplus. 

However, there are also some concerns about the long term effects.  OPEC recently decided Not to reduce their output, and seems willing to allow the price of crude to continue to drop.  This could put many of the new producers/sources, such as the Canadian Sands, and Fracking, etc., at risk.  These newer sources of oil are quite expensive to produce, and if crude prices stay low for any extended period of time, it may put many of these suppliers out of business.  The US is very near reaching energy independence, and the Saudis/OPEC seem to be getting concerned that they may not be able to hold us hostage for much longer.  The OPEC nations have a huge surplus of Dollars, so they can ride out low prices for quite some time, whereas these new producers may not be able to hold out for months/years if crude stays below $70 a barrel.  

In addition, the November car sales showed a real spike in purchases, with the biggest gains being large pickups and SUV's.  We could be looking at a short lived "dip" in energy costs, followed by a major rise that could drive pump prices up to $5 a gallon in a year or two.  Between OPEC playing "Chicken" with the newer and smaller producers, and peoples short memories causing them to revert to buying gas guzzlers again, we might be very wise to "Be Careful of What You Wish For".


----------



## Ina (Dec 4, 2014)

Here Here!!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 4, 2014)

Not complaining


----------



## Debby (Dec 4, 2014)

Will there be complaints when citizens who work in the gas and oil industries in the US begin losing their jobs and the unemployment rates rise along with applications for unemployment insurance?


----------



## hollydolly (Dec 4, 2014)

Here in the Uk unleaded is around £1.20 a litre (£5.80 a gallon)...the equivalent of  over 9 US dollars a gallon..

 It's Down in the last few weeks by about 8pence a litre, but still scandalously high and not likely to come down any  further...


----------



## Don M. (Dec 4, 2014)

hollydolly said:


> Here in the Uk unleaded is around £1.20 a litre (£5.80 a gallon)...the equivalent of  over 9 US dollars a gallon..
> 
> It's Down in the last few weeks by about 8pence a litre, but still scandalously high and not likely to come down any  further...



The huge difference in gas prices, between the US and Europe, is all Taxes.  The Europeans tax gas heavily so as to support an excellent mass transit system...whereas here, we are locked into our cars, for the most part.  But, then, in order to create a mass transit system here that would rival the European systems, we would have to spend Trillions.  The geographic differences and population densities would make such systems very impractical here, except for the big city corridors.


----------



## Vivjen (Dec 4, 2014)

True, Don M; and I also feel it will come back to bite us, sooner or later.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 4, 2014)

YET... on the otherhand.. with gas costing less, people have more money in their pockets..  Not a huge amount, but perhaps a dinner out once a week.  Or an upgrade on some service.. or perhaps a few additional Christmas presents..   That multiplied by millions if consumers,  amounts to a huge bump in the economy and creation of jobs, not a loss. What would be lost in the oil industry jobs would likely be more than made up for in other industries.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 4, 2014)

That's true QS. Instead of so much money going to the oil companies it gets spread around more.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 4, 2014)

What amazes me... bitchin' when gas is high.... and bitchin' when it's low..   Anyone ever happy?


----------



## Ken N Tx (Dec 5, 2014)

Down below $2.00 in Oklahoma City..$1.99

CLICK HERE TO CHECK YOUR AREA


----------



## oldman (Dec 5, 2014)

I believe one of the reasons why oil is low is because China, which is the world's second largest user of oil, (U.S. is first), is suffering somewhat of an economic downturn. Their factories are no longer being utilized at 100%, which equates into less people working. I don't believe they are just yet ready to cash in their U.S Treasury bonds, but China, like always from an economic standpoint, needs to be kept an eye on. If their output (factory) goes up, then this may signal growth and shore up oil prices.  

Also, Russia produces a lot of oil and may be the largest exporter of natural gas. They are not a member of OPEC, so they do not have to abide by the set price on the exchange. Yesterday, WTI futures for January oil closed at $66.00. while Brent closed at $69.00. $3.00 a barrel doesn't sound like much, until you start taking that number times millions of barrels of oil produced and sold daily. 

As for these prices helping the U.S. job market, I would say that it is not helping as much as one may think. We have to keep in mind that a lot, maybe even most of our consumer goods are made off-shore with the exception being automobiles. 

U.S. cars are still popular overseas and the Russians have a love affair with U.S. goods, especially autos, for the moment., which makes little sense, seeing that the Ruble is at a very low price versus the dollar, which then leads to another discussion that oil and dollars do tend to send mixed signals. Oil prices are down, so the Ruble is also down and now Russia finds themselves in a recession. (I think the Ruble is down like 40% against the dollar since last year.) Globally, however, the with the U.S. dollar being strong against the other currencies, including the Euro, it has helped other nations with manufacturing as lower gas prices here in the U.S. has given the American consumer more buying power. 

Looking ahead, Iran and Libya are expected to come back on line with even more oil in the coming months, but this does not mean that we will see even lower gas prices. We may, but it is dependent upon other factors, not just how much oil is on the market. The Saudis have resisted OPEC's demand to cut oil production and the Saudis being the largest OPEC producer pretty much is the benchmark when it comes to production numbers. Right now with the petroleum war in full bloom and Russia fighting to keep their market share, prices cannot be stabilized. As inventories continue to grow, oil traders in the pits just do not have much to bid against other than try to keep the prices from falling too far. 

I have always found that oil prices and dollars go hand in hand along with bond prices. If the little guy wants a piece of the action, he is best to join a consortium and only invest as much as he can afford to lose. If I were to be back trading oil, I would buy my contracts out as far as possible, thinking that oil has to rebound sooner or later. I think mid to late 2015 will see oil prices start to rise. Sooner or later, either OPEC or Russia is going to have to blink and cut production to lower oil prices. It is really a good thing, bad thing. Thirty years ago, I wouldn't have been saying that. Heck, I can remember back in 1963, I was paying around 29 cents a gallon for gas.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Dec 5, 2014)

Personally, I am estatic about the lower gas prices.  I drive 30,000 + miles/year and it makes a significant difference.  

There are so many things that influence crude prices, mostly political.  I still believe a significant bullet point in the OPEC strategy is driven by "back room" negotiations with the U.S.  Russia is dependant upon their oil production to keep their economy stabilized.  When we saw the USSR's economy tank, that took them from being an agressor nation to becoming a better neighbor.  As Putin has transitioned back to an aggressive state, the global nations have taken notice.  If the price of crude can be held down by OPEC and the US, Russia's economy will suffer dramatically.

This drop in crude prices also will curtail the fracking operations here in the US.  Fracking has dramatically contributed to instability beneath the Earth's crust and we have seen a significant uptick in earthquakes.  Buildings and homes are being damaged or ruined.  Infrastructure... water and sewer lines... are at risk.  A pull back in the fracking operations is needed and the lower crude prices should make fracking less profitable.

Yes, much of what we consume is manufactured overseas.  Still, once those containers are off-loaded at our ports they are transported up and down our highways... using fuel.  The cost of those goods at retail will come down as the costs of transportation become lower.  People will have more money for food, clothing, necessities... and, perhaps, a little disposable income.  (We haven't heard that term "disposable income" since the 'dot com' era of the 90's.)

Nationally, we have become accustomed to looking for the negative rather than accentuating the positive.  We blamed the high gas prices on this Administration.  Now, a partisan political culture is looking at how we can blame that same Administration for the gas prices being too low.  You and I cannot control gas prices.  You and I have zero ability to raise crude prices or lower crude prices.  I'm entirely too old to allow political pundits to get me worked up over which way the pendelum of gas prices swings.  The Good Lord has given me one more day to enjoy the blessings of the Earth.  I will look forward to what tomorrow brings, no matter what the global economy related to the price of crude brings.


----------



## Debby (Dec 5, 2014)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> .......
> 
> There are so many things that influence crude prices, mostly political.  I still believe a significant bullet point in the OPEC strategy is driven by "back room" negotiations with the U.S.  Russia is dependant upon their oil production to keep their economy stabilized.  When we saw the USSR's economy tank, that took them from being an agressor nation to becoming a better neighbor.*  As Putin has transitioned back to an aggressive state, *the global nations have taken notice.  If the price of crude can be held down by OPEC and the US, Russia's economy will suffer dramatically.
> 
> .........




Have you actually done any kind of research on Russia and Putin in particular lately?  Anything?  So far I've read two of his recent, lengthy speeches and am currently working on reading one from 2013.  Conciliatory as have been a couple interviews that he's given!!!  That's what he's about these days.  From the latest that I'm reading, this phrase stands out:  

... We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality,.....           http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/6007

...I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation...Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don’t need to be a superpower; this would only be an extra load for us..                  http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137

Does any of that sound like the old Soviet Union?

America is the 'aggressive state' in this case.  Funding neo-Nazi's to the tune of $5 billion to overthrow a government, installing Joe Biden's son in the legal department (may be the head of it) of Ukraines energy corporation, and just recently American, former US diplomat, Natalie Jaresko has given up her American citizenship to take on the role of Ukraines latest Finance Minister!  Could it be any more obvious?                                       http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40379.htm


You know why I get so frustrated whenever Putin is mentioned?  Because the misinformation that people are operating with is coming straight from governments that have an agenda that apparently doesn't include learning to get along with anybody that doesn't toe THEIR line and that can only be bad news for the world, my children, my grandchildren and all of yours.


I will agree with you on one thing.  The gas prices are purely political and while the Saudi's are obviously trying to skewer Iran, Syria and Russia with low, low gas prices, they are also entirely cognizant of the fact that it will have an entirely negative effect on American and Canadian oil and gas and they don't care.  They are out to corner the market once again.


----------



## Debby (Dec 5, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> What amazes me... bitchin' when gas is high.... and bitchin' when it's low..   Anyone ever happy?





Hey, who's bitchin' when it's low?  Nobody is, but I was pointing out the potentially negative consequences to North American industries at a time when the economy is already fragile.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2014)

Fracking is not the problem as some think.    Best we all double check these comments and then find that there are ways these comments actually are not true and do get exagerated when passing from one source to another.

Read this then go to the link and read the entire article.

*One prominent columnist claimed “fracking may be inducing earthquakes.”  The online journal Salon simply declared that the “earthquake epidemic  is linked to fracking.” And NBC News published a story with the bold  title of “Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes.” 

*
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/04/earthquakes-shouldnt-dislodge-the-facts-about/

*Earthquakes shouldn’t dislodge the facts about fracking*

By Chris Faulkner5 p.m.Dec. 4, 2014

The American Southwest is  undergoing a spike in seismic activity. A new U.S. Geological Survey  shows that a small basin on the New Mexico-Colorado border experienced  20 times more serious earthquakes from 2001 to 2011 than it had over the  previous 30 years. There have been similar tremor spikes throughout the  country.


Some media  accounts have been quick to blame this on hydraulic fracturing. Also  known as “fracking,” this technique involves injecting a high-pressure  mixture of water, sand and other fluids to break up underground rock  structures and free up embedded oil and gas.


One  prominent columnist claimed “fracking may be inducing earthquakes.” The  online journal Salon simply declared that the “earthquake epidemic is  linked to fracking.” And NBC News published a story with the bold title  of “Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes.” 


This  thinking is completely off-base. There’s ample evidence indicating that  fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes. And spreading the lie that it does  could lead to policies that undermine job creation and economic growth  in the energy industry. 


Some  fracking operations do create very small seismic events. But, as  Stanford geophysicist and former Obama administration energy advisor  Mark Zoback has noted, these events “pose no danger to the public.” In  fact, research has shown that these very slight tremors release about  the same amount of energy as a gallon of milk falling off a kitchen  counter.


What’s more,  scientists have specifically looked into the idea of these micro-seismic  events somehow leading to the earthquakes. They found zero connection.  As a 2012 U.S. Geographical Survey explicitly stated, “studies do not  suggest that hydraulic fracturing … causes the increased rate of  earthquakes.”

The more  likely culprit? A process called “high-volume wastewater injection.” For  about 20 years, companies have been using this technique to dispose of  water polluted during the production of coal-based methane, drilling of  energy extraction wells and other water-intense activities. A separate  U.S. Geographical Survey study has determined that injected wastewater  has been lubricating fault lines and triggering serious tremors. 


But  even this finding is no reason for panic.  Only a very small slice of  wastewater injection programs are causing any serious tremors. In  Oklahoma, Cornell researchers linked just four out of the state’s 4,500  injection wells — less than 0.1 percent — to seismic activity. And these  were exceptionally high-volume operations where at least 4 million  barrels of water were being disposed of each month.


Nonetheless,  energy companies should work with regulators to reduce the risks of  seismic activity related to wastewater injection. 

Firms  should be prohibited from disposing wastewater in wells near fault  lines. They should be required to take a substantial amount of their  wastewater to treatment plants instead of injecting it. And regulators  should be given the authority to regularly monitor injection sites to  check for unusual tremor activity.
These are the common-sense steps activists should be urging government to take. 


What  won’t go any good, however, is mindlessly demonizing fracking. Indeed,  if activist hysteria fuels the creation of anti-fracking public  policies, the economic effects would be devastating. This technique  already supports over 2 million American jobs. And the continued  expansion of the oil and gas industry could create millions of new  employment opportunities and billions in new growth over the next  decade. Bad laws would kill off this bounty.


Fracking is an economic godsend. Let’s not let baseless hysteria crush it. 


_Faulkner is CEO of Breitling Energy Corp., author of “The Fracking Truth.”_


----------



## Vivjen (Dec 5, 2014)

Our problem is...lack of space!
i agree; demonising fracking is not right, the evidence is not present.
however; fracking in areas of population does, in my view, needs more evidence for it's safety, and that is where UK runs into problems. There is also NIMBY principles in areas of medium to high population....


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Dec 5, 2014)

BobF said:


> Fracking is not the problem as some think. Best we all double check these comments and then find that there are ways these comments actually are not true and do get exagerated when passing from one source to another.
> 
> Read this then go to the link and read the entire article.
> 
> ...



I'm shocked... SHOCKED that the CEO of an oil/gas exploration/extraction company based in Texas would publish and article downplaying the effect of fracking on seismic activity.  I'm shocked... SHOCKED that someone would take the paper of such a biased author as gospel.


----------



## BobF (Dec 5, 2014)

If you are saying this article I posted is just as biased as those that were claiming evil happenings and earthquakes, fine.   Then we are certainly at a draw and that means nothing gained or lost.   A draw.   Now someone needs to find some evidence stronger than what was in my article to prove it was wrong if they want to be the rightful winner of this discussion.   Maybe some facts, not just opinions.   Fracking has been done on wells for many years.   It is not something new recently.

I have no problem with the fracking based on any evidence shown otherwise.   Nice closing statements on my post.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Dec 5, 2014)

http://www.weather.com/science/news/fracking-triggered-hundreds-earthquakes-ohio-20141013

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

There are many articles/studies which draw conclusions that deep well injection/hydraulic fracking is tied to man-made seismic activity.  The entire topic has become extremely politically corrupted.  Northern Oklahoma and Southern Kansas have seen earthquakes, this year, at a record making pace.  Our Governor is financiially tied to the Koch brothers who reside in Southern Kansas.  As the residents became upset due to the increase in earthquakes, the Governor commissioned a committee... participants hand picked by him... to determine if the quakes were being caused by the increased fracking technology in Oklahoma.  The hand-picked committee came back with the judgement that is was "inconclusive" and could not confirm the tie.  A group commissioned by a Governor who supports... and is supported by... some of the wealthiest oil/gas producers in tne Nation comes back with "inconclusive".  That speaks volumes.  One would have thought the determination would have been that there was no tie between fracking and seismic activity.  To have this committee, instead, simply say "inconclusive" tells me that was the only way they could save face while not stepping on the toes of political powerhouses.


----------



## BobF (Dec 6, 2014)

Does anyone know that fracking also happens on water wells?    Does anyone happen to know that fracking actually happened well back in the 1900's?    Does any one really have any provable, repeatedly provable, instances of fracking being a general nuisance anywhere in this world?   Fracking is being attacked with only unproven arguments.    Earthquakes?    Yes, tremors have been detected where fracking has taken place.   But, mostly very lite tremors.    Much of what they have been discussing about is the very low end and low level of shaking from the grounds.   Activity is not often and seldom of harmful strength.

Political forces are what I consider the problems for the US situation, not facts.   Some day we will have oil and such well used,    By then I hope we will have some other, and just a well to use, source of energy for our transportation and homes as what has been used for the recent years.

Yes, today's gas prices are good.   They should stay low much longer than they will be allowed.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 6, 2014)

I recently was listening to someone on the Coast radio show regarding fracking, and said that although it did affect seismic activity to a degree, it was very minimal and blown out of proportion by the media.  I don't know everything about fracking or the Keystone Pipeline, but from all I've heard, I'm not opposed to either.  http://www.examiner.com/article/it-s-thanksgiving-thank-fracking-for-lower-pump-prices


----------



## Debby (Dec 7, 2014)

Just a question here:  doesn't fracking entail the use of 'drinkable water' being injected under pressure to force gas up or something like that?  If so, is that not a serious concern that our drinking water is being used for a purpose that turns it into a waste product?

********

Answered my own question.  Here is a link to a page that has an interesting visual explanation of why people are afraid of the results of fracking.  http://www.dangersoffracking.com

It's a combination of issues they raise:  use of millions of gallons of water per fracking site, plus injection of carcinogenic chemicals, including mercury, lead, methanol, etc. and contamination of groundwater of which that site says there are 1000 documented cases of drinking water contamination.  It ends by saying that only 50% of the fracking liquid is recovered and that is left to evaporate in ponds where it releases toxins into the air causing contaminated air, acid rain and ground level ozone. 

I guess all of the above is why Nova Scotia recently voted to ban fracking in our little province.  Not only are many citizens using private wells for water (we are) but even the small towns are often supplied by wells that fill water towers.


----------



## BobF (Dec 7, 2014)

Interesting and dangerous thinking in that article posted.   The numbers are exaggerated and not at all typical of facts.   For any agency to determine it is absolutely dangerous it has to be political in nature and not at all based on facts that are known.   Just like this article has done.   We in the US also have some lands forbidden.    New York State for example and next door in Pennsylvania there is no restriction.

Example of 'up to 6oo chemicals' is not true of actual usage.   That would be the total that they 'may' use but actual is only 0 to maybe 3 chemicals per well and each for a specific reason.   The percentage of the mix being chemicals is but a small amount like 2 or 3 percent of the total mix used.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing the idea of fracking is much larger in usage than some seem to think, oil or gas, and longer in use than some report.

[h=2]Uses[/h] Hydraulic fracturing is used to increase the rate at which fluids,  such as petroleum, water, or natural gas can be recovered from  subterranean natural reservoirs. Reservoirs are typically porous sandstones, limestones or dolomite rocks, but also include "unconventional reservoirs" such as shale rock or coal  beds. Hydraulic fracturing enables the extraction of natural gas and  oil from rock formations deep below the earth's surface (generally  2,000–6,000 m (5,000–20,000 ft)), which is greatly below typical  groundwater reservoir levels. At such depth, there may be insufficient permeability  or reservoir pressure to allow natural gas and oil to flow from the  rock into the wellbore at high economic return. Thus, creating  conductive fractures in the rock is instrumental in extraction from  naturally impermeable shale reservoirs. Permeability is measured in the  microdarcy to nanodarcy range.[SUP][68][/SUP]  Fractures are a conductive path connecting a larger volume of reservoir  to the well. So-called "super fracking," creates cracks deeper in the  rock formation to release more oil and gas, and increases efficiency.[SUP][69][/SUP]  The yield for typical shale bores generally falls off after the first  year or two, but the peak producing life of a well can be extended to  several decades.[SUP][70][/SUP]


While the main industrial use of hydraulic fracturing is in stimulating production from oil and gas wells,[SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP] hydraulic fracturing is also applied:



To stimulate groundwater wells[SUP][74][/SUP] 
To precondition or induce rock cave-ins mining[SUP][75][/SUP] 
As a means of enhancing waste remediation, usually hydrocarbon waste or spills[SUP][76][/SUP] 
To dispose waste by injection deep into rock[SUP][77][/SUP] 
To measure stress in the Earth[SUP][78][/SUP] 
For electricity generation in enhanced geothermal systems[SUP][79][/SUP] 
To increase injection rates for geologic sequestration of CO
2​[SUP][80][/SUP] 
 
*Since the late 1970s, hydraulic fracturing has been used, in some  cases, to increase the yield of drinking water from wells in a number of  countries, including the US, Australia, and South Africa.[SUP][81][/SUP][SUP][82][/SUP]*

.......................

Water improved by fracking.   These folks are just not at all dealing with facts.


----------



## Son_of_Perdition (Dec 7, 2014)

Sounds like the same warmed over 'not to worry' statements that the government was using back in the 50's 60's and 70's about nuclear and nerve gas testing in the Nevada deserts during that time.  Tell that to the residents (downwinders) of southern Utah, oh yea no one around they mostly died of cancer, and the sheep can't talk but they were bllindly staring at the stars on the western border of NV/Utah.  John Wayne may have something to say about the safe tailings that he was riding through when filming John Ford's westerns.  Any government or corporate guarantees should be taken with a grain of salt.  They are admitting that their advice about healthy eating is somewhat askew now.


----------



## BobF (Dec 7, 2014)

Which do you refer too?    The ruining the water post or my not ruining the water post.   Neither addressed in your post.


----------



## Son_of_Perdition (Dec 7, 2014)

Sorry, my post was a generalized reference to all the warnings or non-warning made by 'experts' in the field of fracking or any other method.  I've been led by the nose too many times in my life with promises that what we are doing will not affect your safety or health in anyway now or in the future.  I wasn't directing my post at anyone in particular.


----------



## Debby (Dec 7, 2014)

BobF said:


> .......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



​





You've mentioned water wells and how they 'frack' them....am I misunderstanding that?  Because it seems to me that the main difference is that water wells are drilled and water comes out as needed, but nothing is added to them.  No chemicals, nothing.  That is a huge difference and it seems to me that suggesting they are the same (as I think you might be implying) is disingenuous.  The same goes for geothermal drilling.  The only thing that goes down those drilled holes is cables/pipes but no chemicals are forced into the surrounding layers. 

You also fail to address the issue of using water that is potentially drinking water and the potential impact of contamination of groundwater and air.

Also that website never said each fracked well has 600 chemicals injected, only that up to 600 may be used/chosen from.


----------



## BobF (Dec 7, 2014)

Darn, I did not know that I was to take a complete response to the post you referenced.   What I did respond to was a direct answer to a direct comment.   It said something about 600 and no what if's were offered.   I understood it to be wrong as I knew from past reviews of fracking that most usually use about 3.

Did you read any of my posts about fracking?    Some water wells that do not produce well get fracked below the pipe itself.   Not any of my misleading at all.   Have you tried, searched for, "fracking water wells" and see what might come up?    Try this one http://www.agwt.org/content/hydrofracking-wells and read the second paragraph  'How does it work',   This should answer some of your questions.

Fracking depends on what you are wanting or doing.   Water wells are vertical for most.   Oil and gas wells are vertical for much of the trip but near the level wanted they turn to a horizontal bore that goes a long ways through the material source.   Fracking is done on the horizontal sections as needed to encourage better flow.   If the wells are producing good enough I would doubt the need for the time and expense of fracking.

Here is another link that I just found and read.   Sounds good to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...ot-fracking-for-water-contamination.html?_r=0


----------



## Debby (Dec 7, 2014)

Sorry Bob, but maybe I'm not understanding something here.  What do you mean some water wells that do not produce well get fracked below the pipe itself?  I just looked at your link and it isn't talking about adding any chemicals to those water wells, just injecting high pressure water in and I don't think the concern is so much the water being injected, as it is the chemicals.  Am I wrong on that?

I came across another illustration that looks pretty good to me, but then this is actually the first time I've ever spent any kind of time on this topic so maybe I'm not seeing something that is important to your argument.  http://exploreshale.org
And according to this site, it's saying that shale gas wells are bored up to 8000 feet vertically and then up to 10,000 feet horizontally.   I guess all of that would be dependant on the site wouldn't it?

It would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that a shale gas well with those kinds of distances are going to have far more impact than a residential well that on average are about 200 feet vertically.  A water well is barely breaking the 'earth's skin' if you know what I mean.  We all survive mosquito bites, but if someone puts a 6" knife in us, the effect is more significant.  Maybe a bad analogy but the two visual links that I found helped me understand what this is all about.   So far I haven't read any of either sides science.  At the same time though I feel like I'm inclined to go on the side of 'it's dangerous to the environment and possibly to our health.  Maybe I should spend a couple days looking at this and if you have a good site that's written for a non-sciencey brain, I'd look at it.  Anyway, have a nice evening.


----------



## BobF (Dec 7, 2014)

> Sorry Bob, but maybe I'm not understanding something  here.  What do you mean some water wells that do not produce well get  fracked below the pipe itself?  I just looked at your link and it isn't  talking about adding any chemicals to those water wells, just injecting  high pressure water in and I don't think the concern is so much the  water being injected, as it is the chemicals.  Am I wrong on that?


.........................

You are right, nothing about chemicals at all.   Did you read the description of two rubber type plugs put down the well past the end of the pipe and and the second well beyond that area.   Then pressurized the space between to help crack the rocks to enhance the water flow?

Chemicals probably not needed so not mentioned at all.   Even on the oil or gas wells there may be no real reason for chemicals but for some certain chemicals may be needed.   I depend on the fracking crews to know what they are doing and to do it correctly.   I read some and either accept or not.

Water wells not producing well sometimes need some help.    Water wells for agriculture and industry need strong steady flows.   Much different from normal house hold wells and needs.   I had a freind that would, for his rural household needs. lower some dynamite down to the lower area and explode it to try to get better water flow.   I don't know if it worked and he did say it was likely illegal where he lived too.   That was thirty years ago and he went to somewhere north and I went south after we both were let go from our jobs, early retirement offers.

I am also thinking that one of my links was to an article about some problems about poor water wells and such were a problem as the fracking oil wells are built with multiple pipes and concrete separating them for good sealing.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...ot-fracking-for-water-contamination.html?_r=0

Keep reading as this entire situation needs good study to understand and so far there is no reason for folks around the world to do without oil or gas for transportation, heating, cooking, etc., to please the ultra concerned ones that for me, do not tell the truth but are trying to make political decisions over scientific studies.


----------



## Debby (Dec 7, 2014)

Well like anything Bob, everybody has their own perspective even on this.  And this is just my opinion for what it's worth, but I don't think that there is any comparison between drilling a 'little' well to take water from and drilling a shale gas well that will include much greater distances and toxic chemicals.  

I think if as the first link I found indicated, there are 1000 instances of home wells being contaminated possibly as a result of shale gas fracking then maybe there are serious problems with the process and the 'science' needs to be done and redone and settle the issue instead of just guessing that all is good.  But, I'm going to do a little more reading and we shall see.

************

So I just read your link Bob and according to it, leaking into residential wells is likely the fault of faulty sealing (with cement) of the shale wells.  It comes down to producers who aren't careful.  One black mark then against the industry which is valid apparently.


----------



## BobF (Dec 8, 2014)

I reread my post and to me it says, not the fracking itself as some authors seem to think but a failure in the well construction itself is the problem.   Sort of why the title of the article caught my eye.   

*Well Leaks, Not Fracking, Are Linked to Fouled Water*

I had stopped following this argument a while back as it seemed that the facts seemed to show, in the US at least, that the successes were much greater than the losses.    Seems that I was wrong with that idea as we seem to see more and more of certain groups efforts to stop oil production at any cost to society.   Great, shut down access to what is needed to keep our businesses and industries from going along readily to bring us better ways of life.   End the ability to have economical fuel and services for autos, trucks, trains, and planes for the current needs.   Why the sudden end to the new clean coal power plants for our power generation.   That was definitly a political call, not from facts, as the plant was built in Indiana by those prior to our current Presidents arrival and was waiting for its production test.   Never happened as on of our Presidents first actions was to demand a shut down for coal fired plants.   A result of some political, not tested idea pushed by certain claims of anti far too much for successful living in our world.   Two more years and we will have a new President in the US and then, no matter which party wins, we will have a chance at fixing some very poor political actions with acceptable real solutions.   Maybe clean coal will come back, maybe not.   Shutting off our plentiful coal reserves in the US was likely a big push to develop the newer ways of drilling to provide more oil as we do today, with horizontal wells and fracking added.    There, I just had a political moment of my own.

My comments about water wells or oil and gas wells was only in regards to the concept and action of 'fracking'.    Fracking is an action used in all types of wells to enhance flow rates.   *Fracking is not the problem* as it is quality well construction that makes the difference.   In some reading I have done it was stated that some of our drilling companies do have better results and less leakage than some other companies.

Reading more is important.


----------



## Debby (Dec 8, 2014)

You're right, reading the info is important and frankly I find that on this forum there seems to a tendency to ignore links that support a contributors side of any given debate.  Now that may be an impression that is incorrect but that's the way it appears to me.  

As far as crappy wells being the cause of water contamination, that's something that must always be addressed.  If it weren't for the 'anti' side bringing up these kinds of issues (even when they happen infrequently)  those corporations doing it wouldn't be inclined to improve.  They are corporations whose owners live far away and their focus is and always has been the bottom line.  Improvements and research take away from that bottom line and so without aggressive 'policing' from activist groups, I highly doubt that they would be moved to improve for the most part.  That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but the fact that regularly, industrial corporations are found out to have hidden their failures, etc., proves my point.   I have made a point over the last few months of bookmarking stories that appear about instances of corporations doing just that (hiding bad acts) and then being found out.  So far, two dozen such stories.

Just like society needs policeman (except for the bad apples of course), the environment needs concerned activists.


----------

