I come from /r/geology, and I'm just about finished with my BS in the SCIENCE OF GEOLOGY. Get that? We aren't paid shills, we do the actual science focused around your topic. We're the ones who conduct experiments, we're the ones who file the reports, and the students are the ones who hear all about our professor's findings and research on the topic of fraccing. With that said:

Fraccing itself is not what's making water flammable or putting all of those horrible deadly chemicals into your water. It is INPROPER WELL CASING. Many well casings are made cheaply/quickly/and just downright improperly and they do not keep that bad stuff out like they are supposed to.

The actual act of fraccing does not cause bad fluids and chemicals to "leak" out, because fraccing happens THOUSANDS of feet below the water table. The water table is at most a couple hundred feet down, depending on where you are, but fraccing occurs generally around 7000 feet down in a shale layer. And all of that gas you're worried about? It's not going to magically float up to the surface, physics just don't work that way. The only way that gas could get all the way up to the water table is if the company does not monitor pressure at all, and the overlying layers are made of something super porous like sandstone. If the company puts too much pressure on the materials in the shale they might get pushed up by the water through the thousands of feet to the water table. I don't think I need to tell you that this is highly unlikely. No oil/gas company is going to be that negligible when their profits are on the line.

Here's where fraccing might cause harm: tectonic activity. There's a place in Guy, AR that is a fraccing area. Before fraccing the area had maybe one or two earthquakes a year. After the companies started to drain the wastewater, the area had over 1000 earthquakes, some at a magnitude of 4.7. This is what you guys should be circlejerking about, because the research over the exact cause and the potential harm it might do to the area is ongoing. We're still not sure if this is just the crust's way of fixing itself after empty space is left down there, or if the increased tectonic activity is a truly dangerous thing. We just don't know yet. We need more data.

So in the future, get your facts, ask the scientists, go where the money isn't and don't ride on some dumb internet geek's coattails to ignorance.

EDIT: Honeydick gave me a great link to a site that describes how bad cement jobs are also a large part of the problem.

Thank you! I followed that link over here from r/geology too. I just got my masters' in geology and would have tried to make a similar argument, but I just got hired on with a major oilfield services company which I've made comments about elsewhere so r/conspiracy would probably interpret me as a "shill". whatever. That being said, I'll add my industry blurb so I can collect some downvotes. Since the company I work for is so huge, before we ever step foot on a rig we get stuck with MONTHS of training in the overwhelming range of processes and equipment involved in the drilling and producing of oil. And in my position I hardly have to scratch the surface of most of this shit and it still takes months. Ass covering to the extreme, really.
But I have friends from grad school who had quit from little po-dung west Texas drilling services companies that hire you on and throw you on a land rig with about 10 minutes worth of training. That's the kind of situation where your accidents happen, in really any line of the business. Inexperience and a smaller ass to cover. Man, and if you guys knew the amount of shit that COULD go wrong everyday and doesn't, just for your cheap gas/electricity...holy shit.

Just like all the hundreds of cell phone tower accidents.. the energy companies I would guess just use layers of contractors.. to shield the actual perpetrators from any legal accountability.

Yeah, that is kind of the deal. One company actually owns the drilling rig. Another company, an actual oil company (BP, Shell, etc), basically rents it to do the drilling. Companies like mine are "oilfield services" companies, and we provide services to the oil company for stuff like formation (the rocks we're drilling) characterization and monitoring the 50 zillion sensors for each process. So if something goes wrong, companies can point fingers at one another. But eventually the buck lands on somebody. I mean, we could just have easily been pointing fingers at Halliburton for the whole Gulf thing. Their cement job was a big part of the overall screwup. There were a bunch of things that went wrong with Macondo that individually wouldn't have been a problem, but there was a lack of communication btwn companies and problems piled up fast.

They must do some interesting stuff with imaging! (Imaging the underground structures by means of various remote sensing methodologies)

Have you been following this "giant sinkhole" story? (Bayou Corne, LA.)

That's pretty bizarre.. I don't know what to make of that..

I guess my biggest fear is the methane "clathrate gun" hypothesis being true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

If we can avoid that kind of thing, and the big volcanos, nuclear meltdowns, etc, I think we could (although with great difficulty) deal with most of the other stuff. Assuming it happens slowly.

But, we could end up needing to find some other planet to live on.

Honestly, the stuff we look at in the gulf is pretty boring. Sand sand sand shale sand shale shale marl marl...zzzzz. And there's no point in actually imaging it. We just analyze parameters like porosity/permeability and gamma radiation (emitted by shales that contain radioactive minerals) and make inferences from there. My job is to actually look at rock cuttings from the wellbore and characterize them. I saw much cooler shit in grad school, this one guy was doing stuff with a downhole camera type thing taking pictures of this limestone that had big vugs in it made by the dissolution of various bivalve shells. Neat looking.

Nope haven't been following the sinkhole thing...what's that all about?

The methane thing stresses me out. I would love to like buy up a plot of land someplace and start planting fruit trees while I'm still working, but I dunno what temperature/precip will be ten-twenty years down the road. It could be that I ought to get land in Canada and plan for it to have a Texas climate. Who knows.

Well, at least you have a job in your chosen field, and that is definitely a good thing. Geology is pretty interesting, I wish I knew more about it. What little I know is nice to have when I travel around, as it makes observing the world around me a little more interesting.

The geological history of this planet is really something.

The sinkhole I am not really following as closely now as I was at the beginning because I thought that the methane coming out of it might have had some origin in these deposits off of the continental shelves (I think this area is alluvial, which is to say that at one time I think it was offshore, not on land) however, it seems as if the problem with methane perhaps (I am just going from what I had read) originated in an underground salt dome that was being used for storage of natural gas.. not the methane ice.. and its an offshoot of this altogether regrettable and horrid situation, not some kind of planet-changing event..

There is a lot of coverage of it at http://enenews.com - you can't miss it.

I don't know where I would want to live with climate change.. I think about that a lot, actually.

Really, the most important thing is being able to support one's self and to have a good community..people who are positive influences on you.. an environment where you will want to be engaged in the community..

That will keep your brain engaged.. thats the most important thing, really. also, sustainability of the basics of life..

Far inland, you never know, in terms of hot and cold, the weather is much more potentially extreme than on the coasts.. But of course on the coasts they have storms, tsunamis, every place has its good and bad issues..

Lol you might want to check up on the meaning of "alluvial". Perhaps this was more along the lines of what you were thinkin of...can't really tell. Basically an alluvial fan underwater. And don't worry, methane hydrate from the shelf is not going to creep uphill onto land. That kind of thing just migrates straight up.

Well, it is doing just that in Siberia and the Arctic.. there are - in many places, literally endless wells which emit bubbles coming out of the former permafrost..

We need some new kind of business structure that handles the situation responsibly.

Then we would be starting to do what we can do, to minimize risk, right now we are not.

If only everyone could stop their spinning and start thinking together to solve the technical problems, we could do it.

What's happening is "groupthink". Its worth Googling that word, and looking into ways that have been examined to try to overcome it.

We should look at energy as the kind of important issue that really, our entire planets future depends on solving. The way we do things now, is just not going to carry us much farther. people profoundly do not trust politicians and they are not doing anything to change that, I see it becoming more and more of a problem.

What about the rank and file of these organizations. They should be able to see that their quality of life and their satisfaction in their careers is influenced a great deal by the professionalism of their organizations. Nobody can maintain their mental health when their organization is covertly working against the public interest. In the long run we all have a great deal to gain, by overcoming "groupthink" and the slash and burn, short term profits over long term interests kind of mentality.

Even though it gives me a job for now, the hydrocarbon-driven economy needs to be phased out. But I guarantee it won't happen until the situation is past fixing and everyone has been visibly affected. People are just too complacent. You could probably stop and ask anybody what they thought of [insert sporting event]'s outcome, but couldn't pay 90+% of people on the street ten bucks to give two shits about peak oil. It's too inconvenient to worry about.

But I guess it's nice to think that we'll come together and save our sorry asses just in time like in the movies. In the meantime I'll be finding ways to gradually remove myself from the grid.

A couple of points about fracturing in Wyoming (where Gasland shows flaming water, etc.):

1) "INPROPER <sic> WELL CASING" is not what is causing the flammable water in places like Pavillion, WY, it's a natural phenomenon. The gas companies tap into the same sandstone reservoirs that domestic wells do, but at much greater depths. These sandstone units are not horizontally or vertically continuous, which is why fracturing fluids have never been found in domestic water supplies (seriously... the EPA stated that outright in their December, 2011 Report on Pavillion). Methane seeps were documented in that area in the late 1800s and the water was described as barely potable, due to high salt content, back then as well.

2) The geology of the Pavillion area is unlike most gas producing areas in the US, primarily because of the depositional environment of the sandstone and siltstone that the gas is trapped in. The gas was produced in a deeper shale unit and has migrated up into these permeable reservoirs and became trapped there with the groundwater. A lot of this gas has also migrated towards the surface and become trapped in shallower pockets, the same ones being tapped for domestic water (see point #1). Most gas fields around the country are primarily in shale units and the depths are much greater. The geology of the gas field is the major player in the potential for gas, water, or fracturing fluids to end up in domestic supplies and is constantly overlooked.

3) Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the gas industry for over 40 years... If it was as damaging as it's claimed, you'd think that we could find some actual evidence for groundwater contamination. There isn't a widely accepted study that says it has. (Please feel free to correct me if this has changed in the past few months, but make sure it wasn't actually rebuffed after the fact.)

4) Fracturing itself hasn't been linked to increased seismic activity, wastewater injection has. (And as pointed out above, it's not the removal of wastewater, it's the placement.) Oil and gas wells develop a lot of water in the process, sometimes more water than the oil and gas combined. Disposing of the water on site is the cheapest and easiest way for a company get rid of the wastewater and it is often injected in separate wells near the oil and gas field. Sometimes the water is used to push more oil and gas into the production well, but I digress. The wastewater is trapped thousands of feet below domestic aquifers and is buffered from those wells by thousands of feet of low-permeability rock (meaning the fluids are trapped and sealed). But yes, I believe that there is significant evidence to support the theory that wasterwater injection (which also happens at sites that aren't fractured) has increased the seismicity near oil and gas fields.

5) Now think of this for a second... Hydraulic fracturing fluids are forced into the production wells with sand and water (mostly these two items). The fluids and sand help to create micro-fractures that help the wells produce at higher rates (fractured wells are usually 2-3 times more productive than non-fractured wells in the same area, which means less wells overall). After fracturing, the wells are put into production and the oil and gas is "sucked" from the formation into the well. The fracturing fluids are then pulled right back into the well, along with the oil and gas. All of the fluids are taken right back out of the ground. The only way for these fluids to escape and get trapped in the formation is through bad well design. But, bad well design is bad for production and is fixed because it loses money.

I'm a geologist, but I don't work for an oil and gas company; but, I did work for a State agency reviewing environmental concerns over hydraulic fracturing. I saw some greedy people trying to get some cash out of the oil and gas companies, but I never saw hard scientific evidence for the degradation of groundwater supplies due to hydraulic fracturing.

tl;dr Hydraulic fracturing has been on-going for over 4 decades and there still isn't proof that it has contaminated any domestic water supplies, anywhere. Wastewater injection related to all oil and gas production (with or without fracturing) likely causes earthquakes.

As a geologist (not in the oil/gas industry) I find it very frustrating the amount of incorrect information that is out there concerning the potential problems with fracturing. As a result of public outcry the EPA is even working on a study to determine potential impacts of drinking water resources. Another decent resource to learn more about hydraulic fracturing: Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer

I wish that the general public would learn the facts. Yes, there are some things to be concerned about with the increasing number of hydraulic fracturing treatments being conducted. Unfortunately most people I have talked to have no idea what the real potential problems are and just make a lot of noise repeating uniformed propaganda.

Like the Delphic Oracle?

I'm not familiar with that.

Not really so related at all but nonetheless a very interesting bit of history which involves wise women, gas and the earth..

Note that it was in continuous operation from 800 BC to AD 393

Over a thousand years..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia

translation: fracking is not a good thing

"no oil/gas company is going to be negligible when their profits are on the line"

this is the kind of stupid shit that makes people accuse you of being a shill.

is fracking damaging? yes of course it is... it's fucking fossil fuels.

Why would it be paid shills? There are a couple of million people on this site. You're bound to find somebody that is for or against for whatever subject you choose to pick. Not everyone that doesn't support your point of view is a "paid shill". Regardless how ridicilous the point they are trying to make is. Just remember, there are people who are extremely religious too and advocate it as if they are the lord himself without being a paid shill for church. And what if you're just wrong? And the "paid shill" is challenging your knowledge to the point you just don't want it to be true? Regardless what you believe and what type of evidence you have seen, you should always challenge your own knowledge to stay on top and avoid being ignorant about new evidence.

Many of those paid shills probably have multiple accounts.. Many, many accounts. Because they want to look like many people.

[deleted]

So its not possible for someone to be more informed and educated about the subject just because you've already come to your own conclusions?

He watched a documentary so now he is an expert.

[deleted]

I'm not sure what your definition of "insane" is if you believe an activist/filmmaker raised in the woods by hippies over actual geologists, scientists and other industry experts.

The geologists are all clearly shills. The entire USGS is on oil bankrolls.

Dude...

I fucking HATE anti-fracking bullshit. And I'm no shill. I just hate disinformation.

I'm fully allowed to critique the bullshit claims of Josh Fox, and those claims made by the Darryl Hannahs of the world.

And YES... please check into the county that Josh Fox claims had its water ruined by fracking. There's documentation that they were having these same problems in the 1930s. LONG before fracking was a thing.

Also... if anyone is a shill, it's the anti-fracking people.

Check their funding. The Matt Damon movie was produced with Middle Eastern oil interest money. Enter the rabbit hole if you dare!

Not everyone is a paid shill. Some people are just misinformed. Look at the user's post history. Either way though, the only answer is to respond with a rebuke of your own, even an army of paid shills can't keep up with a flood of negative comments.

If we want to systematically identify real shills everyone must become familiar with their tactics, and abstain from replicating them in their posts, avoid negativity, keep topics on track, up vote concise non bias comments, when providing a theory, present evidence or cite precedence, be courteous and reenforce "IMO" if it is so.

There was a good article posted a day or two ago that filled in a lot of questions I had on how they work. I am sure it is true. It made complete sense.

I had been hearing about these firms for years. Ever since the swift boat affair, and the tobacco settlement.. (that was where several of the biggest firms started.. tobacco industry)

Fracking isn't dangerous and inherently bad. Its bad when its used near underground water supply, which the gas through the fracking is released and portions find their way to that water supply.

So the solution is to not use it near underground water supplies or near farming land. In itself fracking is very positive as amounts to a multi billion dollar industry.

Not saying you are entirely wrong, but just because something is viable as a multi billion dollar industry, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a positive thing. I'm sure just after rethinking, you can come up with a handful of corrupt multi billion dollar industries. Fracking may or may not be bad, I personally do not know, but giving it any credit based on industry profit is not good thinking IMO.

Not on industry profit, on the good it comes out of the gas, which means cheap heating, cheaper products that use gas for production, tens of thousands of direct employees, hundreds of thousands indirectly employed due to it and overall the growth in economy.

What quantity of these chemicals would you be willing to drink and bath in personally to justify the growth of the economy? It's simple to say the end justifies the means when you're not directly affected. Yet.

It's in the best interest of companies to not contaminate water supply for a few reasons. PR for one. The fact that any leak in the fracking system means it isn't working and delivering as much gas as it could is another. If things get out of hand the company could face fines and the potential of a stock crash which is very bad for them. It's in the best interest of companies to keep it clean.

That's great in theory. I'd love for them to be able to make the money, help the economy and keep everything clean. But, that's got to be incredibly difficult being that the process involved is literally to break up the shale underground. How do you break things in such a manner that you control what and where you break?

You get a degree in geology and spend a few years of your life dedicated to the topic. Mistakes happen but modern science is pretty damn good sometimes and with the amount of money invested the companies get good results.

Mistakes happen

I couldn't agree with you more. The real question is what is the actual cost of these mistakes and how often are they made. Also, what's the ultimate cost of these mistakes? Making a persons household water unfit to even bathe in is not insignificant.

Read my first post idiot. Stupid retard, do you fucking even care to read these days? I said its safe as long as its not close to underground water or farming land you moronic trash, learn to read before you comment next time!!!

I had already read it and responded to someone that responded to you. Careful with my feelings on the internet next time. You might make me cry.

Edit: I'll even add a couple maps to my first post regarding your first post to elaborate.

Yahoo_bot is right that it's terrible when used near underground water supply. But, how do you avoid that? Also, it's not just about the natural gas near the water. It's the reportedly up to 750 other Chemicals that are used. The source I linked for the chemicals is only one of many available. I haven't searched extensively for a complete list. But, there are many available in varying sizes around the net.

Edit: Regarding the chemicals it seems that full disclosure on a complete list is being stalled by government. If it's no big deal to health and safety why stall?

Also, here are a couple maps.

This map shows where all the aquifers in the US are.

This map Illustrates the areas with multiple wells and areas for possible future drilling.

I too was completely ignorant as to what fracking even was. So, when I saw Gasland Come up for free on Amazon Prime. I watched it. Is it one sided? Sure, it's a documentary bringing attention to the negatives of fracking. But, a couple things are pretty simple to understand that you can take away from this.

1. 1-7million gallons of "Produced" water is used per well. Wells are relatively close to eachother with some homeowners able to see as many as six from their doorstep. Produced water is water containing the slew of chemicals. Many of which are known to cause severe medical conditions. And it's reported in this video that roughly half of the water stays in the ground.

2. If a company has to be given immunity from any Environmental Protection laws... And they are.

3. Haliburton is just one of the companies involved in fracking. And good ol' Mr. Dick Cheney whom used to work for them is directly involved in not only granting evironmental immunity but also making sure that these companies are able to drill pretty much anywhere to include Americas Preserves.

Maybe you can dismiss the fact that many people are able to light their water on fire. You can justify it with the needs of the many vs the suffering of the few. But, you can't control where these chemicals go. Once the waters in the ground... it might as well be lost. It's a part of the water supply at that point.

There's a slew of other interesting facts regarding the fracking industry in the video. If they're all true fracking is a mistake. But, again. My source is one sided.

[deleted]

You are just wrong. And an asshole. But more wrong than an ass.

[deleted]

You still are posting a single link that is based entirely on conjecture.

They should do it far away from human habitation.

[deleted]

Earth's crust? What are you even talking about?

This commentor is correct. Fracking gets no where close to depths that could be considered "earth's crust".

Edit: at least in the sense that 21022012 seems to suggest we are compromising the integrity of earth's crust.

[deleted]

That's the fourth time you have posted that link in this thread. We've already established that such phenomenon are natural. Please move on and stop acting like a child.

[deleted]

Little Honkeydick is growing up and realizing the obvious! Yay! Smart kid he is.

[deleted]

Again, conjecture. You are confusing correlation and causation and you are expecting me to debase all science regarding fraccing simply because of a personal observation. Also, are you completely unable to hold a conversation without calling them a fake, shit, faggot, cunt shill?

[deleted]

You have failed to refute any of my so called "lies" with any sort of scientifically backed evidence. Good day

[deleted]

Get lost shill. I know you.

People dont have to rebuke others.. Unless its really crap they are spewing..

Just tell the truth, go with your gut instinct, and if it turns out you are wrong, aplogize. Do try to listen to the other sides arguments, one of the marks of fakes is that even when informed by some item of tuth which is pretty much proved and unarguable, they wll ignore it and go on spouting their disinformation. An actual himan being will usually at least consider a piece of information that doesn't fit and wonder, perhaps, they were wrong. And you can tell the difference. Usually.

I routinely defend my opinions on Reddit, and am not a shill. I think way too many people here don't understand that half of Reddit is being a place to argue on the internet. This is just a guy, spreading the opinion of most people in the field that fracking is not harmful. You have an oil well a few inches think, a mile below the Earth, separated by impenetrable rock. The only dangers come from contamination during the drilling, releasing toxic substances already underground into the ground water, or a poor cement job that allows the well to break and release the chemicals. Essentially there's always danger with drilling, but fracking barely adds to that danger.

separated by impenetrable rock

easy boy. I have drilled through faults before, to say they don't come to the surface is a lie. I have seen a "Frack" fountain shoot up from the middle of a farmers field. No where near an artesian well.

Thank god then that fracking doesn't typically occur in fault zones and that the rock is usually 4-5 kilometers of non-porous sandstone.

[deleted]

5 Km of anything is impermeable. There are 0 scientific studies that have found any evidence of chemicals from the bottom of a frack well seeping though the rock all the way up to the water table.

[deleted]

This was not because there was a well 7 miles away. This sort of thing happens all of the time naturally, in places where there are no wells.

[deleted]

No where in the article do they mention that any fracking fluid was found. Are you going to keep acting like a child or are you going to give some real evidence?

[deleted]

And if I may ask, what are your qualifications?

Edit: So you are, in no way, qualified?

[deleted]

If you look carefully you will notice that my 7071 link karma has all been carefully engineered to provide the illusion that I am a regular person instead of a puppet account run by Dick Cheney. That would all be wrong.

In hindsight, this conversation is hilarious. I wonder if the dude you were arguing with decided to delete his account because the molemen were on to him, or if it was the CHUDS? Maybe he was scared of chemtrails :rolleyes:

I think he uncovered the truth about me actually being a puppet of Haliburton and they took him out.

Please do. I am completely sure you will sacrifice your entire career to win a debate on the internet. I'm waiting. Let me know when you finish it.

[deleted]

That observation is completely correct. Just look through my comment history and you will see that I shill on all kinds of topics.

Source? I haven't heard of anything like this.

Actually, no portion of Reddit was designed for arguing. It's designed for discussion. People who come to Reddit with the mentality that they must argue suck all the fun and value out of a good ol discussion.

Actually, no portion of Reddit was designed for arguing

/r/argueme, check mate

OP, are you really so ignorant that you will feed on any story the MSM ( in this case Gasland) feeds you without first looking into the issue yourself and seeing the wealth of evidence that shows that there is no correlation between flammable gas and fracking? Are you that willing to swallow the story that was handed to you despite all of the evidence to the contrary?

Edit: if you look closely you will notice that I am clearly an industry shill. You can tell because this is the first post I have ever commented on fracking in over a year of Reddit.

[deleted]

That link literally gives no evidence whatsoever and as a geologist who has worked on 50+ gas rigs, I have never seen anything close to what you claim to have seen.

[deleted]

Marcellus and Utica.

[deleted]

Take your word on what? That you've seen accidents happen? I don't doubt it, but are you suggesting the whole thing get shut down because of what is clearly a minority? If you want to use a reliable energy source which is completely free of harming the environment, I suggest you go buy some candles.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many formations you can name, providing a link to something with zero evidence doesn't help anything.

[deleted]

If you're not suggesting shutting it down, then what is your overall point? So far all I've seen you do is tell people you're right and everybody else is wrong. I do recognize the problems with drilling, and I also recognize the problems with every other energy resource we try to harness. My point is that the problems are minimal with drilling, and therefore I am okay with it.

But what are you actually trying to say? What are your answers to the problems?

Don't argue with him. He is delusional. Read his comments throughout the post.

Wouldn't surprise me. corporate social engineering is a big part of reddit to influence mass opinion. We've seen examples of this with shill accounts posting videos of soldiers reuniting with families after being in afghanistan etc, in attempts to elicit positive emotional responses, shills pushing pro zionist agendas, and whatever else.

[deleted]

its used as a form of social engineering in order for people to empathise with soldiers engaged in unpopular conflicts. can't get angry at the troops if theyre just following orders and want to get home, right ?

What teen_riot's alluding to is a few months back there were a ton of accounts where the only submission was a sob story video or pic of soldiers returning. The accounts were always only a few hours or minutes old and they never posted anything else. This would happen on a basis of a few times a week. Obviously a rigging of submissions by some outside group. I'm on my phone but you can easily find reference of this if you search. Even non-/r/conspiracy subs were covering it.

i'm tired of misinformed people spreading nonsense, so i'm going to repeat something i have posted several times before. i don't know about you, but i like it when issues are decided on through science rather than wild speculation.

professional geologists here who has never worked in the oil/gas industry. there is no risk of contaminating aquifers from the actual fracking process itself. by definition, fracking requires a completely self contained system: you can't have leaks if you want to produce pressure. then once the fractures have been produced, you still can't have leaks, or else you won't be able to recover the hydrocarbons. fracking fluids are engineered and injected at precise pressures to induce fractures only within the target formation, then the oil/gas can flow into a completely contained well, which is separated from aquifers by steel casing. target formations are separated from the fresh water zone by 100s to 1000s of feet of rock, and there absolutely must be an impermeable cap rock above the target, otherwise the fracking process won't work. if a fracture were to propagate all the way to the top of the target (which fracking engineers make sure does not happen, to maximize recovery), there will still be impermeable cap rock above. it takes fluids 10s to 100s of thousands of years to flow through shales/mudstones, and those are everywhere in the subsurface.

fracking has been going on all the time since the 1970s, and there is no evidence of the actual fracking process contaminating drinking water, ever. however, water has been contaminated when drilling companies have done poor cementing/casing jobs through the fresh water zone. this can happen regardless of whether or not fracking occurs. but guess what, nearly every oil/gas well drilled in the past 40 years has been fracked. even a lot of water wells are fracked.

in my opinion, the solution is simple: we need national regulations on cementing/casing jobs, a requirement to show the presence of a solid cap rock, and a mandate for completely self contained fluid injection/recovery systems.

Ya'll need to seriously consider some therapy or medication and probably both.

[deleted]

Ohhh ohh! I support fracing! Can I get paid now?

Anyone? Anyone?

Aww :(

Guess I just have to keep supporting it while not getting paid.

Fracking has it's dangers just like EVERY PRACTICAL ENERGY RESOURCE we try to harness. In the recent years fracking has become much more safety and environmentally conscious and if all goes to plan, there should be no ground water contamination whatsoever. That isn't to say there aren't accidents, or companies that rush the process.

Tap water has been bursting into flames for years because of methane, and the cool part is, with some relatively simple tests, we can tell if the methane is a result of drilling, or it is naturally occurring.

I don't think anybody is claiming that fracking companies are innocent, but I do find it curious that people jump on the band wagon to protest fracking, meanwhile nobody gives a shit about coal polluting the air, depleted uranium contaminating ground water, or hydro power destroying ecosystems.

Sure is schilly in here burrrr

Because shills have nothing better to do than come to /r/conspiracy huh?

Is this what you are talking about? (Tap water exploding into flames because it contains more than twice the safe amount of methane)

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/01/11/16462830-rossen-reports-family-discovers-their-tap-water-is-flammable

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261173/Debby-Kline-water-Family-fears-safety-tap-water-containing-twice-safe-level-methane-catches-alight-creating-fireball-bathroom.html

Would seem to me that they could harness some of that energy - ?? But they probably cannot drink the water without letting it air out for some time..

Wow. Look at the shills coming out to defend themselves.

Yup. I noticed this phenomena re: fracking before i even found out that these people are called shills.

Pardon the people who work in the natural gas industry for trying to correct some of the uneducated and mis-informed shit that people like OP spew.

[deleted]

Again, that is a news article with no scientific standing. The author that wrote it probably knows no more about geology than the layman. Please provide me some kind of accurate and scientific source before resorting to name calling and acting like a child.

Pardon ecologists, biologists and zoologists for looking at you guys like your are fucking deadly crazy.

It probably has more to do with the fact that he works for a fracking company. Think about how much propaganda you would be inundated with if you were a low level employee there

None whatsoever. The main goal of every employee working on a gas rig is to do the job as safely and efficiently as possible, in that order.

[deleted]

I'm all about taking it to paid shills, but in this case I think this guy is just a working guy trying to give his look at the Fracking issue. I work in the oil field too. I'm not going to hide that fact. This is no more a Shill than everyone that posts in /r/buildapc.

What evidence do you have of this?

Aye, very very popular in technology and political social sites. Microsoft is quite guilty of it trying to convince consumers that they aren't getting ripped off from the abortion called Windows 8. And 'astroturfing' even became a buzzword when republicans and democrats entered into m.a.d. revealing the secret publicly in an attempt to gain an upper hand (of which ultimately neither did).

Though the more I think about it, I think they made the buzzword and revealed the practice publicly to somewhat legitimize the practice as perhaps not ethical, but acceptable.

Edit: And why are you getting downvoted? You brought up a great point.

there is so much mental engineering here, in all the subs, little suggestions and opinions, inserted here, inserted there....very subliminal...

I don't get why anyone is talking about fracing there unless they started fracing in NYC.

New York State has fracking.

Does New York City? (The warning is from NYC not state)

decades ago I had a friend who worked for the company that adverised the Camel brand of cigarette. They had a sort of secret nerve center for advertising tobacco, they were based in New York, on Madison Ave.

They even had their own elevator, which of course, had a sign in it, "Thank you for Smoking" - Which was famous in some circles.

He told me that he was not supposed to tell anybody that he worked there or what he did...

Of course, a lot of people knew about them, so it wasn't such a big secret.. by the end..

What does that have to do with this?

The campaign to cast doubt on scientific findings that tobacco caused cancer was the crucible, as it were, that created this huge disinformation industry and the documents that came out of the many tobacco lawsuits are still the largest body of publicly available documents on their methods, even though they largely predate the Internet era.

Those kinds of firms are very secretive. They don't want people to be aware that they even exist.

Again what does that have to do with what I am saying.

Are people blind to not see the paid bloggers. Probably a third or a half of the people who comment on some issues are probably paid bloggers. They all show up at the same time. They probably have scripts that run that tell them which stories to barrage with their noise/fake BS stories.

There are tons pf people who post telling about the great (like impossible) deals they got on health insurance, or how they want "choice" over anything else.. Basically in healthcare they try to get people to want Obamacare, thinking that it will be affordable. Considering how much money is at stake its understandable but its evil because Americans absolutely cannot afford what they are selling, and its time that we should be discussing something that would work. Not something we pretty much already know wont.

What evidence do you have of this?

Look at the situation with the WTO and selling health insurance over state lines. How Ralph Nader's organization predicted it in 2008, then its come to pass exactly as they predicted.

How does this show that "a third or half" the people that post on boards are paid to do so?

Obviously, that would be impossible to prove but I think it can be shown by their activities. It could probably also be shown mathematically.

Just look around you.

Ok, I did.

Now, what evidence do you have to support your claim?

What evidence do you have to support your (presumed) claim that they aren't?

Excuse me? That's not how it works. You don't get to avoid having to prove a claim by asking someone to prove the negative.

You made a claim: That "paid shills" exist; people who are paid by some nefarious group to go on message boards such as reddit and argue particular points. Prove that claim.

I didn't make that claim, its common knowledge. This is a whole industry you are talking about here. Your asking me to "prove it" is ridiculous. I don't have the time to go searching back through all the web pages and newspaper articles Ive read, but Ive probably read, just guessing, ten articles about it, and heard it mentioned countless times. A friend of mine, decades ago was working in the advertising industry and he worked for one of these firms for a while, we used to joke about it. That was not on the Internet, though that was pre-internet..

I suspect he still is knowledgeable about it, although I haven't spoken with him in years, he would know.

Certain PR firms, are heavily involved in this kind of thing. Read "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" (book) - thats about "greenwashing" and "astroturf" - Those two words would probably find you some stuff to go on.

I don't make it a practice of investigating too deeply into this, I am not some kind of muckracker. I am just wasting time on here.. should blog less.

A thought..

If you look at the European press, they tend to be more candid about things that are happening in the US than the American press..

I didn't make that claim, its common knowledge.

You made the claim here, without any sources. If it's "common knowledge" it should be no problem for you to prove it.

Since you want so much to argue about this, why don't you track down the original version of this article and join whatever discussion is occurring there. Its recent, its probably attracting others who want to discuss this, generally, its probably a good place to get specific info others are posting.

That said, I saw a sort of tell all article by somebody formerly in the (US) health insurance disinfo campaign on either Guardian.com, the Independent or the Telegraph (big UK papers) probably around 2009 or 2010. And that was a big article with a lot of information. I don't have the URL, sorry.

The title was something like "I was a".... It was during the so called debate in the USA on the "affordable care" act but it was in the British press. It was not on the BBC. I think it was probably the Guardian but I am not sure.

This is the article that came out a few days ago..

http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate

Here is another way to find out about these kinds of things.. Google "sockpuppet" or "sockpuppetry"

The article you link to was debunked as an obvious fraud almost immediately - it reads like a crime noir novel, FFS. Ridiculous.

See, there's your problem - you lack a properly functioning bullshit detector.

Look, it completely makes sense to me because I see and argue with those people constantly. Also, its ridiculous for you to argue that an entire industry does not exist. Google "guerrilla marketing" or "viral marketing" or "sock puppet". Go to Wikipedia and look at the procedures that have in place to try to fight "sockpuppetry", and "puppetism".

Go to online review web sites and notice how many reviews are fake.. Go to political web sites and notice how many political discussions are hijacked by inane or demonstrably misleading discussants.. who basically will not allow an intelligent discussion to occur about a great many subjects without efforts to drag those discussions down to a 9th grade level of intelligence.

This stuff didn't just begin yesterday.

Look, it completely makes sense to me because I see and argue with those people constantly.

You think you do. In reality, your sense of self-importance has led you to the false belief that anyone who disagrees with you "must" be working for the "other side."

Also, its ridiculous for you to argue that an entire industry does not exist. Google "guerrilla marketing" or "viral marketing" or "sock puppet". Go to Wikipedia and look at the procedures that have in place to try to fight "sockpuppetry", and "puppetism".

None of these are what you're talking about. You're saying, to use an example, that "death rays" exist because industrial plasma cutters exist.

Go to online review web sites and notice how many reviews are fake..

Ok, and? This is not being a "paid shill" in a discussion of a conspiracy theory. Try to stay on topic.

Go to political web sites and notice how many political discussions are hijacked by inane or demonstrably misleading discussants.. who basically will not allow an intelligent discussion to occur about a great many subjects without efforts to drag those discussions down to a 9th grade level of intelligence.

Ok? Troll =/= paid shill.

This stuff didn't just begin yesterday.

First true thing you've said. Of course, it also didn't begin at any time prior to that.

Let me be clear: There is no such thing as "paid shills" who are hired to come to places like /r/conspiracy and post against conspiracy theorists. They do not exist, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.

Look, it completely makes sense to me because I see and argue with those people constantly.

You think you do. In reality, your sense of self-importance has led you to the false belief that anyone who disagrees with you "must" be working for the "other side."

No, unfortunately.. I wish.

Also, its ridiculous for you to argue that an entire industry does not exist. Google "guerrilla marketing" or "viral marketing" or "sock puppet". Go to Wikipedia and look at the procedures that have in place to try to fight "sockpuppetry", and "puppetism".

None of these are what you're talking about. You're saying, to use an example, that "death rays" exist because industrial plasma cutters exist.

If I am trying to convince you its because I think that this kind of thing is a threat to democracy's functioning.. It makes no difference to me whether you believe these people are everywhere on the Internet because its clear that they are, and your or my believing in them makes no difference to the situation..

The poisoning of discussions is poisoning our democracy. Its making appearance more important than substance and in that respect, its a threat to the functioning of any democracy.

If you don't believe in these people's existence or ability to poison issues, ASK ANY POLITICIAN.

Go to online review web sites and notice how many reviews are fake..

Ok, and? This is not being a "paid shill" in a discussion of a conspiracy theory. Try to stay on topic.

Go to political web sites and notice how many political discussions are hijacked by inane or demonstrably misleading discussants.. who basically will not allow an intelligent discussion to occur about a great many subjects without efforts to drag those discussions down to a 9th grade level of intelligence.

Ok? Troll =/= paid shill.

But, certain kinds of issues immediately attract these kinds of people, reliably, and the way they respond is predictable.

This stuff didn't just begin yesterday.

First true thing you've said. Of course, it also didn't begin at any time prior to that.

That is where you are wrong, because you are not all seeing, you are making a blanket statement there, not me. Your statement is that these things "don't exist", my statement is that they do. The likelihood of them not existing is virtually nil. the amount of them may be debatable.. but I never professed to know much about them beyond one particular area.

Let me be clear: There is no such thing as "paid shills" who are hired to come to places like /r/conspiracy and post against conspiracy theorists.

Well, there you just limited your previous argument drastically* when you had not before. Why would those people come to r/conspiracy? What reason would people come to a place with a name that immediately says "dont take me too seriously"? - That I hope would make most of those people want to find other discussions where they would seem more credible.. But, what do I know, maybe I am completely wrong. I just don't know and I don't profess to know- **about r/conspiracy

I am new here and to be honest, some (most) of the arguments made by "conspiracy theorists" just seem to me to be wrong, but, I value the fact that at least now, we (here in the US) still have the freedom to share our half baked theories, which is what I was trying to do. Speculation.

And I am qualifying the things I am saying, giving you the additional information that I would want to attribute your own level of credibility to the truth or untruth of what I am saying, as I did, which is what I would expect from others. Rather than trying to make the decision for you, as you seem to be trying to do with me.

Google is your friend, because its hard to spam and it gives somewhat illustrative statistically parse able results.

They do not exist, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.

:(

Look at the healthcare "debate". Look at the many important issues which weren't just not discussed, they were literally shouted down whenever somebody tried to bring them up. Look at the way that the mainstream media literally embargoed news on single payer. Whenever a person brought it up, they vanished from news coverage.

Those people doing the shouting weren't just opinionated, they were being paid.

Those people doing the shouting weren't just opinionated, they were being paid.

And again, your evidence of this is what? They were saying things you don't like? How about maybe they just disagree with you?

Anyway to get in on this? I lost my job b/c of Sandy, and could use a new paycheck.

I wouldn't even want to know!

My gut feeling is that those kinds of jobs are not good for the person, they may put some food on the table but ...

The only people who support fracking are those who profit from it and those who are uninformed.

Take your word on what? That you've seen accidents happen? I don't doubt it, but are you suggesting the whole thing get shut down because of what is clearly a minority? If you want to use a reliable energy source which is completely free of harming the environment, I suggest you go buy some candles.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many formations you can name, providing a link to something with zero evidence doesn't help anything.

Well, at least you have a job in your chosen field, and that is definitely a good thing. Geology is pretty interesting, I wish I knew more about it. What little I know is nice to have when I travel around, as it makes observing the world around me a little more interesting.

The geological history of this planet is really something.

The sinkhole I am not really following as closely now as I was at the beginning because I thought that the methane coming out of it might have had some origin in these deposits off of the continental shelves (I think this area is alluvial, which is to say that at one time I think it was offshore, not on land) however, it seems as if the problem with methane perhaps (I am just going from what I had read) originated in an underground salt dome that was being used for storage of natural gas.. not the methane ice.. and its an offshoot of this altogether regrettable and horrid situation, not some kind of planet-changing event..

There is a lot of coverage of it at http://enenews.com - you can't miss it.

I don't know where I would want to live with climate change.. I think about that a lot, actually.

Really, the most important thing is being able to support one's self and to have a good community..people who are positive influences on you.. an environment where you will want to be engaged in the community..

That will keep your brain engaged.. thats the most important thing, really. also, sustainability of the basics of life..

Far inland, you never know, in terms of hot and cold, the weather is much more potentially extreme than on the coasts.. But of course on the coasts they have storms, tsunamis, every place has its good and bad issues..

Pardon ecologists, biologists and zoologists for looking at you guys like your are fucking deadly crazy.