Natural gas fracking debate heats up

The conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation has pledged to support drilling for natural gas in North Carolina and has drawn a line in the sand against a study from Duke University ’s Nicholas School of the Environment that raised concerns about how natural gas is extracted from the ground.

Called hydrofracturing, or “fracking” for short, gas companies blast large volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to create enough pressure to crack open hydrocarbon-rich shale and extract its embedded natural gas.

A group of Duke researchers last year published a peer-reviewed article in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that became one of the most read articles on its website. The study found elevated levels of methane in wells with drinking water close to fracking sites in Pennsylvania.

Daniel Fine, a director at the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy, spoke for about an hour at a regular John Locke Foundation meeting Monday, telling those in attendance that drilling for natural gas was indeed safe. He questioned the Duke study in part by quoting Michael L. Krancer, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, who called the study “statistically and technically biased” in testimony before the subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Nov. 16.

“There is a total rejection of that study,” Fine said Monday.

Despite Fine's assertion, the researchers previously have addressed several of the issues that he brought up. Fine said he and others would help “set up a response” to Duke, environmentalists and the “mass media,” which will mount an “opposition” to hydrofracking in North Carolina.

The researchers previously have said they would welcome further studies. They say they are not anti-fracking, but want to know more about what chemicals are pumped into the ground and what effects the drilling will have on drinking water.

Some more greenie BS, I live in the middle of fracking.

I think maybe it's time we take all these academics out and put them to work digging ditches or some other useful endeavor that would contribute to the benefit of our society rather than being the destructive leeches they are currently . . . either that or just burn them at the stake.

Hydro-fracking is as old as drilling itself. These idiots are just looking for a new meal ticket since the AGW train is about to come off the rails. They're not sufficiently capable to earn a real living in industry, so they "teach" their liberal propaganda and suck up grant money by making up these crack-pot theories and then, rather than engaging in real science and finding out if they're accurate, they set about attempting to prove themselves right.

It's not science, it's creative writing and computer modeled legerdemain.

Most anti-frac groups are liberal.

So I’m going to create a study which links frac’ing to terminations of human fetuses in the womb. Once I show that frac’ing kills the unborn, all Progressives will jump on board without hesitation.

These idiots are just looking for a new meal ticket since the AGW train is about to come off the rails.

More than that, domestic shale gas poses a massive threat to the environmental movement in the sense that it is a clean energy, domestically sourced and produced by American workers earning above-average wages. Domestic, cheap energy results in more manufacturing, improved lifestyles and a stronger economy. Plentiful, cheap, domestic energy will destroy the dream of solar, wind and algae for at least the next 50-100 years.

Back a couple of weeks ago one of our fellow FReepers posted what might be the definitive posts on fracking......

For twelve years I designed high pressure instrumentation for fracking systems. At that time I needed to know what the fracking slurries were composed of so that my precision instruments could be designed to hold up in service.
The slurries are sand, water. and emulsifiers. The emulsifiers are typically casein (a milk product), gelatin and bean gums (guar, tragacanth, etc.). They aren’t poisons, most, in fact are edible. The small amount of hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide used is to buffer the pH of the slurry for maximum thickening, so that the sand doesn’t settle out quickly. As for how much they use, these people have an eye on cost. They don’t use any more than they need, less than 1 percent. Buffalo Jack 2-12-12

Peer-reviewed, as in by those who pee on things?

Sounds like the studiers never bothered to check how much methane was in the water wells before the fracking began. Or whether the methane reflected the characteristics of the source being tapped by fracking. So at the best it’s an open question. If fracking is done properly, none of the natural gas goes anywhere except up the gas well shaft.

"Fig. 1—In 1947, Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing in the Hugoton field located in southwestern Kansas. The treatment utilized napalm (gelled gasoline) and sand from the Arkansas River."

Thanks for the info!

For twelve years I designed high pressure instrumentation for fracking systems. At that time I needed to know what the fracking slurries were composed of so that my precision instruments could be designed to hold up in service.
The slurries are sand, water. and emulsifiers. The emulsifiers are typically casein (a milk product), gelatin and bean gums (guar, tragacanth, etc.). They aren’t poisons, most, in fact are edible. The small amount of hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide used is to buffer the pH of the slurry for maximum thickening, so that the sand doesn’t settle out quickly. As for how much they use, these people have an eye on cost. They don’t use any more than they need, less than 1 percent. Buffalo Jack 2-12-12

So that’s where that line came from.....”I love the smell of Napalm in the morning”.