Mach, how well do you understand the geology involved in this?

(04-28-2012 03:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mach, how well do you understand the geology involved in this?

I am sure you are going to tell us since you know everything.

(04-28-2012 03:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-28-2012 03:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mach, how well do you understand the geology involved in this?

I am sure you are going to tell us since you know everything.

And I am sure you won't tell us because you are an idiot.

I have 20 hours of undergraduate study in geology. I have 30 hours of graduate studies in Environmental Sciences which qualifies me to be an adjunct professor through the University of Findlay in the field. I've taught classes for 100 level credit in Enviro 100 and Geo 104-105. I know enough about it to get me into trouble but don't hold a degree in it.

They are fracking shale which I guess acts like a cap stone. I know 36 states show potential for it. I know under current plans they hydraulic frack 4 times then send down thick sloped concrete to plug the hole. Critics worry about earthquakes cracking the plug. Also the densities of the chemical mixtures are less than 1. So they will seep up through the water if they can escape.

(04-28-2012 03:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I have 20 hours of undergraduate study in geology. I have 30 hours of graduate studies in Environmental Sciences

Not coursework that is particularly respected.

Its value lies in dealing with regulatory affairs (processing paperwork), not physical science. Sorry to be such a dick about it, but I'm dealing w/ that field right now, and have interviewed more than one person w/ an Env Sci degree.

Quote: Also the densities of the chemical mixtures are less than 1.

That surprises me. Most minerals have densities (well specific gravities if you're going to drop the units) >1.

(04-28-2012 04:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-28-2012 03:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I have 20 hours of undergraduate study in geology. I have 30 hours of graduate studies in Environmental Sciences

Not coursework that is particularly respected.

Its value lies in dealing with regulatory affairs (processing paperwork), not physical science. Sorry to be such a dick about it, but I'm dealing w/ that field right now, and have interviewed more than one person w/ an Env Sci degree.

Quote: Also the densities of the chemical mixtures are less than 1.

That surprises me. Most minerals have densities (well specific gravities if you're going to drop the units) >1.

Not to you anyway. Now if it was a Theology degree...

Starting off with Gasland invalidates the rest of your post. The movie has been busted for being fraudulent.

Water that is flammable is more common than you think, particularly when it is government sanctioned and approved (e.g. - Cuyahoga River). But there are some areas where pre-existing containments have caused water that was flammable documented all the way back to the 1600's. Unless you think the Pilgrims and Indians were fracking there Mach ...... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fracknat...nceptions/

The burning of water doesn't bother me in the least. If I was one of those guy's I would find a way to seperate the methane and heat my house. I care about the volatile organics that end up in my tap water. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

(04-28-2012 04:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The burning of water doesn't bother me in the least. If I was one of those guy's I would find a way to seperate the methane and heat my house. I care about the volatile organics that end up in my tap water. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

Protip: Natural gas has been leaking into the water table for 100's of years all over the country. Long before we ever cultivated it. Fracking will actually REDUCE this problem in the long term as the source of contamination (natural gas) is removed.

GTS-

The natural gas in the water isn't the problem. I don't know if you typed that before you read my original reply, but to be absolutely clear. The methane is NOT the problem as I see it.

60 years. No problems.

(04-28-2012 05:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  60 years. No problems.

Given your responses on this board, I am quite sure you have been drinking water that contains substances that shouldn't be in your water for 60 years.

(04-28-2012 05:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  GTS-

The natural gas in the water isn't the problem. I don't know if you typed that before you read my original reply, but to be absolutely clear. The methane is NOT the problem as I see it.

Natural gas isn't pure methane. Your containments originate from the natural gas sources. Do you think we pump gasoline straight out of the ground? No ... it's mixed with alot of other hydrocarbons as crude oil. Same story with natural gas, it's mixed with alot of other stuff, including what you're worried about.

Again,

The biggest elephant in the room is "If fracking isn't a problem why exempt it from the clean water act". Puts a lot of people's minds to ease when the EPA is on the case. On the flip side when you lobby and have papa Cheney put in loopholes, these actions makes one wary.