Hydrofracking question.

:roll:

When I suggested that the cement was supposed to cover the Newburg Dolomite, you denied it.

Maybe in your world...

:Roll:
Rehashing an argument that has already been rebutted... I'm sure there's a name for that.

 

Here:

By illustrating how my assertions are consistent with Lisa Simpson's statement, your argument, the argument I claimed to have rebuffed (not Lisa Simpson's statement, asserting that is bordering on intellectual dishonesty and disingenuity), is precisely addressed and rebutted.

 

Take it up with the page author.

I posted it because it was a relevant list of incidents that have happened involving fracked wells that have resulted in the contamination of groundwater.

Anything you infered from the page title about my intentions in doing so is entirely your problem.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not backpeddling.

 

Really? Because I thought the meaning of "No, the cement is used to seal the well bore" in response to "the cement did not seal the Newburg Dolomite, even though it was supposed to" was pretty clear cut.

Asked and answered.

I've already explained this, and even quoted it for you.

Allow me to restate it for you a third time:
"She's looking at the fact that the improper fracking was caused by improper well construction, so the source of the original fault, from her perspective is the fact that the well was improperly constructed."

However, as of May 2011, in preperation for the testimony, the EPA still asserts that the decision to proceed with fracking the well was one of three factors that resulted in the over-pressurization of the well, and the subsequent migration of natural gas into the groundwater (the other two being improper well construction, and leaving the well closed).

 

Then you should be more careful before leaping to assinine conclusions.

You've done that multiple times in this discussion.

Right, and I didn't claim otherwise.

HOWEVER the EPA has released a couple of reports that considered Bainbridge and the English #1 well in amongst several others, the most recent of which was titled "Risks to drinking water from Oil and Gas Bore Construction" or something very similar to that anyway. The most recent report was released in March, or May 2011, considers the Bainbridge Incident, and lists the decision to frack as one of three causal factors all of which I have aknowledged explicitly.

I don't recall suggesting she did, although having said that 'proven' is a qualifier. There may be no proven cases, but there are a number of suspected cases.

I didn't say there was, I said that the well was fracked improperly. Do you understand the difference? This right here is one of the things that seems to have been hampering you in this conversation. If the well was constructed poorely, and the poor construction allowed out of zone fracking (as the DNRDMR state), then even if the fracking operation was conducted normally (which it wasn't, they cut it short when the flow problems arose) then the well has been fracked improperly, because out of zone fracking is an abnormal, non-trivial result.

USEPA, DNRDMR, E&R, and a panel of experts convened to resolve the differences between the DNRDMR and E&R report all disagree with you. They all explicitly list the decision to proceed with the frack as one of three things that led to the contamination of the groundwater, and the exploding house.

 

The fact is that the DNRDMR report explicitly states that the fracking was one of three factors that led to this incident, and that out of zone fracking occured.

No amount of obfuscation, bluster, or browbeating on your part is ever going to change that. It's right there, in black and white.

I'm done here.

 

No it isn't, unless the USEPA also misread the report.

Right, and as I have stated several times now, the decision to proceed with the frack was one of the factors leading to what happened.

The decision to proceed with the frack even though the well was improperly constructed resulted in the out of zone fracking, which lead to the communication of the frack with the well bore (and so on and so forth).

None of which should be allowed to distract from the PNAS article I cited in the same post.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910105&postcount=8

I originally just wanted to remind people about the PNAS article I cited, but thought I may as well respond.

Now I'm done here.

 

I know I said I was done, but I could not abide the blatant dishonesty that appeared while I was at work.

No.

That's your personal spin on what I've said, in spite of the fact that I have stated several times now that the fracking operation was conducted normally, but resulted in an abnormal outcome.

RTFP

Yes, and I have stated this how many times now? I'm not disputing this point. This is a strawman. The fact that you continue to raise this IMHO amounts to trolling.

I quote from page 35 of the EPA report (link provided by you).

2. Decision to Hydraulically Fracture the Well Despite the Poor Cement Job: Circulation of fluid and oil in the surface-production casing annulus during hydraulic fracturing indicates that the fractures grew “out-of-zone” and allowed the frac to communicate directly with the wellbore. The frac likely compromised the 80 feet of cement between
the top perf and the open annulus, causing a loss of cement bond between the formation and production casing. This likely allowed Clinton gas to also migrate into the annulus behind the production casing.

Also, from page 20, point 3:
“Out-of-zone” hydraulic fracture growth allows gas to migrate from the Clinton formation into the open annulus behind the production casing.

So they precisely name the out of zone fracking as one of the factors resulting in what happened.

 

I have supported my argument, repeatedly.

You have yet to address what I have actually said, because you're too busy leaping to conclusions, you've done it multiple times in this thread, and you're still doing it.

I called your conclusions assinine (and they are) not you.
Or do you think that if I suggest that a statement is moronic, it automatically follows that the person making the statement is a moron?

You have, repeatedly.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.​

​

You said: "The Cement is supposed to be well above the Newberg layer."
It has never been my contention that that the concrete was not supposed to be above the Newburg Dolomite.
In fact I have explicitly stated that:
1. The concrete was supposed to extended 700-800 feet above the Clinton Sandstone.
2. The concrete was supposed to seal the Newburg Dolomite.
Your argument is against a misrepresentation of my assertion, therefore it is a strawman.

And the out of zone fracking is still listed as one of three factors that resulted in this happening. It always has been, and it always will be.

Look. I've explicitly acknowledged that the poor cement work had a role to play in all of this, have I not?

Setting aside the prior assertion that they fracked the Newburg Dolomite, which I have subsequently suggested is irrelevant, what have I actually said.

I have said that a normal fracking operation led to an abnormally fracked well, and that the USEPA, and DNRDMR have both tagged this as one of the causal factors that resulted in the events at Bainbridge.

You've agreed that out of zone fracking occured (although we seem to be in disagreement as to whether or not this is a normal result).
You've agreed that they fracked past the concrete into the well annulus.
You (presumably) agree that this would allow the build up of additional HP NG in the space between the well casing and the well wall.

And yet you seem to insist on drawing some bizzare inference about my statement.

Which would come under the heading Human error, which I have already pointed out that I have acknowledged occured. In fact this is just a restatement of things I have previously said, which leads me to wonder - are you actually reading my posts? Or are you just reacting to things that you see and do not like?

And the decision to frack, and the role of human error.

They are not saying that the Fracking was done incorrectly.
They explained the "out of zone Fracking" as compromising the Cement plug because it was only 80 ft thick.

They also point out the gas is coming from the CLINTON formation, which was the zone they were Fracking.

Which is why the Cement is supposed to be much higher in the well bore, so the Fracking operation can't break through it.[/QUOTE]
"I said that the well was fracked improperly. Do you understand the difference? This right here is one of the things that seems to have been hampering you in this conversation. If the well was constructed poorely, and the poor construction allowed out of zone fracking (as the DNRDMR state), then even if the fracking operation was conducted normally (which it wasn't, they cut it short when the flow problems arose) then the well has been fracked improperly, because out of zone fracking is an abnormal, non-trivial result."

Or are you going to try an argue that:
1. Fracking [completely] past the concrete is a normal result in a well that is constructed properly.
2. Fracking [completely] past the concrete is a trivial result.
3. Poor construction had nothing to do with it.
4. Human error had nothing to do with it.
5. It is correct, and appropriate to frack a well that has been cemented improperly.
6. That if the fracking procedure states "First seal the well to this standard, then frack", and they do not seal to that standard, that the frack has been done improperly.

Take a moment to think about it before you reply.