Hydrofracking question.

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by bunnyversusworld, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Now you're just being silly, presenting a logical fallacy, and misrepresenting the situation.

    My argument is that in this specific instance the DMRM identified the decision to frack as one of three factors leading to the events that occured at Bainbridge.

    The bulk of the discussion has amounted to Arthur stating "But you've ignored this", and me pointing out where I have specifically or implicitly addressed that point in my argument, and Arthur presenting such claims as "The contamination did not proceed through the bedrock", and "The concrete in the well had nothing to do with sealing the Newburg".

    Addendum:

    I think the key point to understand in the difference between my view and Arthurs view, is that Arthur's view essentially amounts to the claim "It would have happened anyway". In other words, Arthur appears to be of the opinion that with the well improperly sealed from the newburg, and left closed for 31 days, pressures would have built up to the point where the contamination that occured would have occured, even without the fracking. My position is, in essence, that we don't know that, it may not have happened, we can't rule the fracking out as being a neccessary step in what happened.

    This is best illustrated by the Lisa Jackson's quote, often cited by Arthur, versus the title of the page I linked to earlier in the thread. The page I linked to was titled "Cases where gas well fracking is SUSPECTED to have caused groundwater contamination". Lisa Jackson stated "There is no case where fracking has been PROVEN to cause groundwater contamination." Inspite of what has been asserted in this thread, the two statements are not irreconcilable, when one considers the significance of the emphasized words.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Wrong.

    The Newberg was NOT fracked as you have been claiming Trippy.

    As the file I posted earlier showed.

    STEP 2: As a result of the poor cement job, the shallow Ohio and Newburg gas-bearing zones are left open behind casing and the gas migrates into the annulus.

    STEP 3 was the fracking.

    It's clear from this that the migration of the Newburg gas was because of a POOR CEMENT JOB and had nothing to do with Fracking.

    After the Fracking, gas also got past the very shallow cement job as well, but not because the Fracking was done wrong, but because they didn't cement the well in properly.

    I know you can't see the difference.


    As far as Lisa Jackson's statement, it was in in May 2011, over 3 years after this well was drilled and well after the studies and reports on it were published, and so the cause had indeed been proven to not have been caused by Fracking but by a bad Cement job.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I don't see the point of arguing further. I am damned sure, after almost forty years in the industry that to prevent the contamination any drilling department, drilling manager and drilling engineer worthe their salt would focus on a better designed casing and cementing program and more attention on its proper implementation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And you wonder why I used words such as 'Dishonest' and 'troll' to describe your behaviour?

    I believe I also subsequently had this to say:
    And I don't recall having subsequently made that claim after having abandoned it with that statement.

    As the file I posted earlier showed.

    I haven't denied any of this. In fact I've stated it, several times now.

    See above.

    Something doesn't have to be done improperly to lead to an improper result, hence the comment that I have made several times now: "As long as the fracking is done correctly and appropriately.

    And there you go again, not understanding the point I made. Stepping past it to chase off after a windmill instead.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I don't disagree with this assertion.

    Tell me though, after fourty years in the industry:
    Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate to proceed with an fracking in an incorrectly constructed well?

    Do you think that the venting of gas from the fracked resevoire into well annulus is a correct result, or an incorrect result of the fracking operation?

    Because from where I sit, I would call it an inappropriate decision (or action) leading to an incorrect result.
     
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Because you like to reduce arguments to attacks on the people involved?

    It certainly can't be to further the discussion.

    Except you JUST brought up the Newberg again Trippy even though it had NOTHING to do with the Fracking operation.

    Except nearly every gas well today involves Fracking to release the HP gas.

    And all you are essentially with your "appropriately" qualification is that if the Cementing team tells the Fracking team that the Well has been successfully Cemented. WHICH IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, and thus the Fracking Team goes ahead and Fracks the rock layer correctly, but the subsequent release of HP gas breaches the piss poor cement job, then that's a problem with Fracking.

    And that's not simply not rational.
    Indeed it assumes that each subsequent operation in the well must recheck all preceeding operations or suffer the blame.

    Doesn't work that way in the real world.

    Which is why Lisa could make her statement 3 years after this well problem.

    It was proved that it wasn't because of the Fracking that the well leaked.

    She couldn't have been more clear.



    I'm done here.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,810
    It means that subsequent operations may cause contamination unless they recheck all preceding operations. If that's not possible/fair/economical then fracking WILL cause contamination problems.

    Looks like you've just argued that fracking has a significant contamination problem.
     
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope.

    See Lisa Jackson's statement.

    Attempts to blame any issue with a well that utilizes Fracking on Fracking itself, is simply a transparent attempt to stop the growth in NG drilling.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    :roll:

    Yes, I mentioned the Newburg again, but I mentioned cementing the Newburg, and the discussion we had about whether or not part of the role of the cement was to seal the Newburg, not fracking it.

    This is precisely the sort of thing that I've been complaining about throughout much of the conversation, it's like you're skim reading posts and flying off the handle when you come accross certain keywords.

    Nope. That's what you're hearing, but it's not what I'm saying.

    That's not what the USEPA report and the DMRM report had to say, nor the slide you presented. Every piece of information that has been presented has identified the decision to frack as one of three key things that lead to the events at bainbridge. The worst I have done at any stage in this is the equivalent of crosstalk - there were reports talking about the fracking of the Newburg Dolomite and the Ohio Shale, but as a result of the gas over pressurization, rather than the fracking operation itself. It is (or has been) one of a series of points raised in a court case related to bainbridge, where the informants are claiming that there is still a permanent leak (and yes, I'm aware that the USEPA addressed and dismissed this point in subsequent reports, however, that's beside the point I am making here).

    You're right. She was very specific. Something that is categorized is suspected or probable is not often (or never) categorized as proven.

    That is the point that I was making, and which you sidestepped to chase off after windmills.
     
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope, it HAD been suspected.

    But she made that comment well after all these reports were in, so she knew this was no longer the case.

    It wasn't a case of contamination because of Fracking.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,810
    You're arguing with yourself here.

    I did and replied to you on that topic earlier.

    So any attempt to blame, say, the sales performance of EV's on the performance of EV's themselves is simply a transparent attempt to stop the growth in electric vehicles?

    You should be ashamed of yourself!
     
  15. bunnyversusworld Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    So, what exactly are the current investigations by the EPA into the safety of hydrofracking-cementing wells?
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Nope, it IS suspected. It is NOT confirmed.

    The DMRM and USEPA relying on DMRM's advice still list, as of their preperation for the testimony you keep citing, still list the decision to frack as one of three factors leading to what happened.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No kidding Trippy.

    The Cement crew, telling the Frack Crew that it was ok to proceed with Fracking, ie release the HP gas, of course was a factor.

    Doesn't mean that Fracking was the issue because the go ahead to Frack is not made by the people doing the Fracking.

    They rely on the reports from the Drillers and the Cementing crew that the well is ready to proceed to their step.

    So yeah, had they not released the gas (which is what happens when they Frack the gas bearing layer) gas from that layer wouldn't of been released.

    That doesn't mean it was a problem with Fracking.

    I know you don't understand the difference.

    Those responsible for regulating this, like Lisa Jackson, obviously do.

    And they disagree with you.


    fyi, on the Macanudo well, the cement job was also bad, and yet the cement crew told the Mud Pushers they could recover the heavy drilling fluid that had been keeping the high pressure contained.

    When they removed the drilling mud the oil surged to the surface with such force it damaged the BOP and ulimately sunk the drilling platform.

    Using your logic, the problem was with the Mud Pushers for removing the drilling mud and not the Cementers for misreading the Negative Pressure Test that showed the cement wasn't able to hold the oil and gas in the well.

    The fact is each crew has certain responsibilities and relys on the other crew to do their job correctly.

    All NG wells have to be cemented properly, and then tested properly to make sure the cementing was done right, regardless if they have to frack the gas layer or not to release the HP gas.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    adoucette, your honourable attempts to argue the case will fail because Trippy (apparently) does not understand the way in which the drilling world operates. Unless you are deriving intellectual pleasure from the debate you would be best to walk away.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Thanks,

    Good advice.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Jesus H. This isn't about me not understanding the way the drilling world operates.

    The difference between my position and Arthurs position is that according to his position, it would have happened regardless, because the Newburg Dolomite wasn't sealed properly (even though, according to Arthur, the concrete has nothing to do with sealing the Newburg Dolomite).

    My position is that fracking the well, and in the process of doing so, frackin past the cement was a neccessary step in the events that happened, which implies that had they simply sealed the well and walked away when they discovered the inadequate cement job, or done an additional cement squeeze before they fracked then none of this would have happened.

    If you're going to comment on my position, at least have the courtosey answer questions addressed directly to you.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Finally.

    I'm aware that the go ahead to frack is not made by the people doing the Fracking.

    Yes, I'm aware of that, and they had the information that the well was not ready to proceed to their next step, and they fracked anyway.

    So yeah, had they not released the gas (which is what happens when they Frack the gas bearing layer) gas from that layer wouldn't of been released.

    That doesn't mean it was a problem with Fracking.

    I know you don't understand the difference.

    She at least understands the difference between something that is alleged and something that is proven anyway.

    No they don't, every source that has been cited in this discussion says the same thing that I have - that the decision to proceed with the fracking (and therefore the fracking) were one of three things that caused the incident at bainbridge.

    But apparently "One of three things" is too complex for yourself and Ophiolite to comprehend, even with your claimed experience in the field.

    Oh bullshit. That's not my logic, that's your spin on my logic. The whole way through (or nearly the whole way through) I have been quite clear, the fracking was a neccessary ingredient in what happened, and it was one of three things that contributed to what happened at the well (the other two being the bad cement job and human error), but you're too busy with your knee jerk bullshit reactions, and trying to put spin on what I have said to take the time to understand what I have been trying to say.

    No shit sherlock.

    Which brings us back to one of my original points - that fracking generally seems to be fine as long as the wells are fracked correctly or appropriately.

    Do you think that it is correct or appropriate to frack an improperly constructed well?
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    From where I sit that is exactly what it is about.

    I am conscious of not yet having replied to your earlier queries. The delay relates directly to this being an issue of your understanding of the complex inter-relationships in well construction. I have yet to find a way of answering your questions in a way that would change your perception of what is involved here. If you wish to interpret my commitment to providing such answers once I have constructed them, as a discourtesy, you are free to do so. If you wish to consider my failure to advise you that this was the case is also a discourtesy, you are free to do so.
     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not from where I sit. From where I sit the problem looks very different.

    I have consistently, and continuously been presented with wrong argument after wrong argument.

    I was told that sealing the well had nothing to do with sealing the newburg. It does, Newburg gas is sour, and sours any product that it comes into contact with, so they like to keep it out of the well.

    I was told that I was ignoring the component of human error, and the bad cement job. I wasn't I have acknowledged both of those at every step of the way, or nearly so.

    I was told that the contamination did not occur through the bedrock, when in fact it did, the surface structures extended through the topsoil, into the bedrock, and 50 feet below the Brea sandstone, which is locally used as an aquifer (indeed, IIRC it was primarily the wells tapping the brea sandstone in Bainbridge that experienced the problems).

    I have even stated explicitly that the English #1 well in Bainbridge was correctly fracked, but that that correct fracking led to an incorrect result as a result of the incorrect construction.

    My stance is that, give or take the PNAS article I linked to earlier, as long as a well is correctly and appropriately fracked, that fracking is not problematic, and that problems only arise when a well is incorrectly or inappropriately fracked. At no time have I claimed that the events at Bainbridge represent a systematic problem with fracking.

    So unless you want to try and argue that claiming that applying a correct fracking procedure to a well that has not been constructed according to code may cause problems reflects a lack of understanding on my part... :shrugs:

    And although neither you nor Arthur could reasonably be expected to know this I have argued I think here, and certainly elswhere that fracking is not problematic as long as appropriate legislative controls are in place and enforced.

    The rest of the conversation has been, from where I sit, my interloqutor insisting on interpreting certain key phrases with a very specific spin on them. Hence the accusations I have leveled at him.

    Addnedum:
    The most that can, or should, be reasonably infered from my position, is that although I understand that the Newburg Dolomite is a source of HP gas, I do not believe it to be of sufficiently high pressure to have cause the problems observed without the presence of HP Clinton gas in the well, and the clinton gas was only in the well because the fracking bypassed the inadequate cement job. Point being that the implication of that is that, as I have said a couple of times now, according to my stance, had they not fracked, what happened would not have happened.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012

Share This Page