Hydrofracking question.

I will say this though, I do have one big objection to fracking.

My objection is the secrecy surrounding the chemicals that are used. Yes, there's a lot of information out there, and some companies are more open than others, however, there is a lot of secrecy around it.

Even that concern is self centered rather than environmental - because of what I do for a living, should fracking become widespread within the region I live, and should an incident occur involving a chemical spill, I would be among those required to attend.

 

Yes, finally, because I've been saying the same dam thing for two or three pages.

 

Yes, finally, because for the last three or four pages now, I have been saying the same thing, over and over.
"The decision to frack (and therefore the fracking) was one of three factors resulting in the overpressurization of the well."

You have, at every turn, insisted that I was wrong, and argued against that assertion, which you finally appear to have accepted.

:Roll:

1. Doing so is an example of reductio ad ridiculum. You're taking what I have said on the matter, and extending it to an absurd conclusion, which resembles a strawman hypothesis, and then arguing that because your absurd strawman abstraction of my argument is wrong (or ridiculous) that the argument itself is wrong. This is a cheap tactic.
2. A valid causal mechanism exists. The fracking blew out (or as I put it, fracked past) the cement that was supposed to contain it. This had two consequences. It provided a conduit that conducted the gas directly from the target zone to the well annulus, allowing the Clinton Sandstone, and the increased flow from it, to vent into annulus.
3. As I have stated, more than once now, the only thing that my assertion reasonably implies is that had they simply drilled the well, and decided to postpone the fracking until an additional squeeze job could be performed to finish sealing the well, that although overpressurization may still have occured, I do not believe it would have occured to the same extent, or led to the same results.

That, as I have stated explicitly several times now, is the difference between our stances. I believe that the venting of the HP NG from the Clinton Sandstone, at the flow rates available after the Clinton Sandstone had been fracked was a neccessary component of what happened. That if we remove that, by considering the scenario where the well is left closed off, but unfracked, and improperly constructed, that we would not see sufficient over-pressurization to result in the contamination of the Brea Sandstone Aquifer. You, on the other hand appear to believe that the Newburg Dolomite is capable of generating sufficient pressure, on its own and unfracked to do this anyway.

Or, two put it another way. I am of the opinion that all three ingredients, as listed by the DMRM and subsequently USEPA (IE Human Error, poor construction, the fracking) are neccessary, and that removing any one of them would be sufficient to prevent the outcome. You seem to believe that the fracking is irrelevant to the outcome, and that it rests solely on the first two components.

 

You have stated, or suggested, several times now that the fracking is irrelevant, and was not a cause of what happened, any more than drilling the well in the first place, correct?

Lisa Jackson stated that there are no proven cases. This is a case where it is suspected, but unproven. I know these are distinctions you don't appreciate, but they are real.

Or, alternatively, how should I put this...

"You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means" -Imigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.

 

And every report on the matter, including the one by the EPA in 2011 lists the decision to frack the well inspite of it being known the cement job was incomplete as one of three factors that caused the incident.

The timing of the comment in relation to the timing of the event is irrelevant to the distinction between it being known and it being suspected. It has to do with the information available, and the information available suggests it was a factor, but is not strong enough to prove it was a factor. I know that's a distinction you don't appreciate, but it is real.

That's untrue - the 2011 report on the incident prepared by the USEPA restated the DMRM's suggestion that the fracking was one of three factors believed to have caused the incident.

Thanks for catching that typo, I'll fix it. Was it neccessary to be quite so abrasive about it?

If you're wondering how I can call it a typo, take a look at your keyboard. Note that the N and M keys are right beside each other (well, on a QWERTY keyboard the are anyway). Now be aware that I touch type (more or less), and occasionally my fingers aren't where I am expecting them to be. 99% of the time I catch it - EG when I spell 'touch type' as 'touch tupe', or go all out and spell 'all' 's;;' or 'a;;' or 'akk'.

This instance falls into the 1% that I miss.

 

There is no finally.

I have been saying the same thing for at least four pages.

 

Some of the district councils (roughly speaking, county level) here in NZ have already done precisely that, at least until more information is made available.

Even here in Dunedin, the DCC is considering it.

 

<sarcasm>Really?

They're fracking in Taranaki? I had no idea! Oh my god NO! </sarcasm>

:Roll: